1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

[Ken Streeter]

NOTE -- I originally hadn't intended to ask this question of the ChiefDelphi community prior to receiving an answer to our pending Q&A from the FIRST Game Design Committee, but so many people have asked about what happened to our dual-configuration robot in the four days since the start of our week 1 regional that I am having difficulty justifying the continued delay to reply to folks while waiting for the official Q&A response...

This year our team employed a strategy that piqued our curiousity in past years every time we saw the "different configurations of the ROBOT" phrase in the weight rule (<R12> this year) -- we built a robot with two radically different configurations.

Our first robot configuration (which we call "Fezzik") is a standard, but minimal, drive base with an arm; the second configuration ("Speed Racer / Mach 6") is a very small, light, lap-runner with a cool autonomous mode (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65193&highlight=1519). We worked hard to minimize weight on each configuration in order to have the total for both meet the 120 pound maximum weight limit. We designed a modular electronics board which would fit in the available space for each drivetrain, as well as have the appropriate circuit breakers and speed controllers. We also made compromises with each configuration to reduce weight as much as possible. When all was said and done, we just barely made weight with the two configurations -- 87.7 pounds for Fezzik (including the electronics board) and 32.1 pounds for the Speed Racer without any electronics. We were very excited for the possibilities opened up by being able to choose which configuration of the robot to field in any given match given the composition of our alliances. We also thought our approach was innovative and potentially award-worthy.

However, upon arriving at the Granite State Regional, we learned that our dual-configuration robot would not be allowed, as it was considered to be in violation of Rule R09: "Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition." We protested that we didn't have two robots, but rather one dual-configuration robot. Prior to the tournament, we had not submitted an official Q&A asking if our approach was permissible, as we thought our design was completely within the rules. However, a different line of reasoning ("If it looks like two robots, it's two robots") would indicate that our design is clearly against the rules.

On Thursday afternoon, we submitted a multi-page description of our approach and design, including photos of each configuration, to the official Q&A. (You can read the same description in a link titled "official request for clarification" in the Team News section of our website: http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/default.asp#GSR-Day1.) We realized when we submitted the Q&A that we would almost surely not hear an answer before the completion of the Granite State Regional, as those who would be involved with the decision were probably all busy at other regional tournaments! However, we wanted to submit the question to the official Q&A as soon as possible in case we might possibly have a reply prior to Saturday's elimination rounds or before we would have to pack the robot into the crate in case we qualified for the Championships. As we anticipated, we didn't receive a reply to our question during the tournament, but we still had a great time at GSR nonetheless. Fezzik performed admirably, ending up as the #4 seed, and our efforts at the tournament during the qualification rounds could be focused on Fezzik's needs rather than being split between the two different configurations.

The need for an answer to our question has been overcome by events, as we didn't qualify for the Championships (our alliance with 126 and 1307 was beaten fair and square in 4 hard-fought semifinal matches against 121, 40, and 134 who later emerged as the GSR champions) but we hope to hear the official response in the Q&A at some point regarding our dual-configuration robot.

In any case, we hope to get both Fezzik and Speed Racer some laps at post-season tournaments this summer!

[Jaybee1405]

Ahh. That sucks. You had a good argument, and I'm surprised it didn't go your way.

May I ask why Fezzik?

[Ken Streeter]

May I ask why Fezzik?
Fezzik is the giant in The Princess Bride who can pick up large rocks and handily toss them wherever he pleases. In one of our meetings early in the manufacture of the robot, somebody remarked that the prototype arm picked up the trackball as easily as Fezzik picked up large rocks... after that, the name just stuck!

Plus, Fezzik is a fun character!

"Anybody want a peanut?"

[EricH]

Did you need to transfer the electronics? If so, I think that would be what made it two robots. If not, then you (probably) had a modular robot that should have been allowed.

[Matt H.]

I believe they did have to transfer the electronics however I view that as still legal. In my mind the electronics board is the robot--anything else is just a module making their design fine.

[EricH]

I believe they did have to transfer the electronics however I view that as still legal. In my mind the electronics board is the robot--anything else is just a module making their design fine.
That was how a robot was defined in previous years. However, that doesn't apply this year!

[Alex Golec]

ROBOT: Anything that has passed ROBOT inspection that a TEAM places on the TRACK prior to the start of a MATCH

I recall seeing at one point that a robot was minimally an RC, radio, and battery - you could place those components in a cardboard box and call it a robot. However, that is most likely from an older set of rules.

For this year, I have not yet found a list of required components for a "minimalist" robot. It seems as though your drive base was being considered the "minimal" component. Nowhere in the rules does it state that your robot must drive (Although you risk impeding traffic). Hence, that cannot logically be the "minimal" component to define a "ROBOT."

Personally, I agree with your decision - the RC and Radio are the core components of the "ROBOT," and the drivebase, frame, and arm are modular additions to that panel, and to the extent of my knowledge, this is legal per the 2008 rules. If all your components can pass inspection, then yes, it should be legal.

Here's where it may get tricky - if your electronics board is the "stationary" component in the sizing, then it should be mounted at the same "x,y coordinates" on both robots. From the looks of it, Mach 6 is small enough that this should not be a problem.

The disqualification of your robot's dual configuration on the grounds that "if it looks like two robots, it is two robots" is baseless and irrational according to the rules. Consider this: if I built two radically different arms that drastically changed the appearance of my robot, should I be only be allowed to use one configuration? NO. Making the whole robot a module is creative, unique, and innovative. Kudos on taking this risk.

-Alex Golec

[dtengineering]

"If it looks like two robots, it is two robots" is an arbitrary position with no defining line between what looks like two robots and what doesn't. There is no rule stating that you can replace an arm or manipulator but not a drive base, or what fraction of the robot can be considered a seperate "configuration". Generally I would say that unless a rule specifically prohibits something that the default position of tournament officials should be to allow the strategy in question until it is ruled against. When a rule is unclear, or subject to interpretation, and safety is not at risk, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the team.

It is a shame that a representative from GDC did not immediately answer your well stated request for clarification. People may suggest that you should have asked GDC earlier, but I see no reason why you should ask Q&A, "is it okay if we are creative so long as we comply with all written rules for the competition" at all. If the tournament officials had a problem with your set up, it is they... not you... that should have asked for and waited for clarification.

Mind you, it sounds like you didn't need speed racer at all, but unfortunately it sounds like you were not considered for the creativity awards you so richly deserved. Based on what I have read, I hope GDC will find it fit to rule in your favour and present you with a creativity award direct from FIRST.

Congratulations on having perhaps the lightest robot to rank in the top eight in the recent history of FRC!

Jason

P.S. I note the CAD drawing of Fezzik in the request for clarification shows 4 CIMs attached to the gearboxes? Just an oversight, I presume?

[Justin Montois]

I think both configurations should have been allowed.

STARTING CONFIGURATION-...This configuration is static, and does not change during a single MATCH (although it may change from MATCH to MATCH).

I see your Speed racer configuration as the same as if you had bolted every component on your robot together and when you wanted to go from one configuration to the other you would just have to make some modifications by unbolting(or bolting) certain parts ETC. As long as you met the weight requirement(which you did) and both configurations pass inspection, then you should have been allowed to compete with the configuration of you choice.

I wish it would have gone your way but I'm happy you had the success you did in spite of the hardships.

[kevin.li.rit]

I was wondering why I didn't see the speed racer on the field.

[Tristan Lall]

After having read the brief submitted to the GDC, and looked at the pictures and video posted of 1519's multiple-configuration robot, I can't see any reason to rule against it.

I too recall that past definitions of robots specified a minimal set of components. Since that is not in effect this year, I would be inclined to deem anything that meets all of the rules mandating certain configurations as a legal robot. (Most of those rules are electrical in nature, so a minimal robot would contain some electronics, a flag holder, and little else. That minimal robot might even be separate pieces, satisfying the rules as a set.)

I'm very curious what the GDC will say, and which rules they'll use to justify it.

Here's where it may get tricky - if your electronics board is the "stationary" component in the sizing, then it should be mounted at the same "x,y coordinates" on both robots. From the looks of it, Mach 6 is small enough that this should not be a problem.I don't agree with the notion of requiring the same x- and y-co-ordinates. I don't believe that the rules require any such thing. It's like the "front" of the robot: I consider that to be arbitrary, and defined at the discretion of the robot's designer.

P.S. I note the CAD drawing of Fezzik in the request for clarification shows 4 CIMs attached to the gearboxes? Just an oversight, I presume?Additionally, Jason brings up an interesting point, regarding the CIM motors depicted on Fezzik (which may not even have been present on the real robot, so this is merely a hypothetical situation). Is it legal to mount spare items on different configurations, anticipating that only one configuration (which satisfies all rules on its own) will be used at a time, but exceeding the parts usage limit for a single robot when all configurations are considered together? For example, you have 6 CIM motors; initially, you mount 4 for inspection, and leave 2 aside. Later, you mount 4 to Fezzik and 2 to Speed Racer. Is it valid to store your spare parts attached to unused configurations in this manner?

In the past, I've argued that this is a stretch of the rules, but not necessarily a violation, and not definitively an unfair situation. Especially given the 2008 definition of a robot (which describes it in terms of its use during a match), it seems that what you do with your robot in the pits is your business, as long as it's legal when it plays. (That's consistent with the idea that it is, of course, practically impossible for a team to be in continual compliance with the robot rules while the robot is in the pits being worked on.)

Another similar case would be if they brought in the all of parts for the second configuration, including the extra motors, assembled as a single fabricated upgrade part (weighing less than 25 lb). In this case, I think the rules clearly permit it. This case can be functionally equivalent to the original hypothetical scenario, and is permissible—so if the original scenario is to be disallowed, it seems we must distinguish it somehow. But I can't think of any way (or any reason to do so, for that matter).

The argument against all of this is that it saves the team lots of time, not having to swap motors (or whatever the spares are), when they make a configuration change. I'd call that an advantage of a good design, and verify that the spares (if fabricated) fell within the 25 lb weight allowance, but I don't think that I'd have any reason to disallow it.

[Ken Streeter]

"If it looks like two robots, it is two robots" is an arbitrary position with no defining line between what looks like two robots and what doesn't.Just to clarify, the quote about "If it looks like two robots, it is two robots" isn't a phrase that was told to us, but rather an example of a different starting perspective that would clearly rule our design as being two robots, rather than one robot.

As best as I can recall, the ruling of two robots was based upon R09. ("Each ... team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT ...") Prior to our even arriving at our regional, the GDC had been made aware of our "two robots" and had sent email to the regional's tech inspector that our design did not comply with the intent of that rule. However, as the GDC had never seen our design firsthand or been presented any information from us directly, I was concerned that their decision was based upon a different understanding of our design than what we had actually built, despite the best intentions of all involved parties.

The other rule that I recall being mentioned to illustrate that our design violated the intent of R09 was R12 (the weight rule) which says, "When determining weight, the basic ROBOT structure and all elements of all additional mechanisms that might be used in different configurations of the ROBOT shall be weighed together." Since our two configurations did not share a single "basic ROBOT structure" (other than the electronics board) it was considered as two robots.

However, as you mention, our robot being disallowed as two robots makes it unclear as to what fraction of the robot can be considered a seperate "configuration." Hopefully the pending response to our Q&A question will clarify this.

It is a shame that a representative from GDC did not immediately answer your well stated request for clarification.
We, too, would have liked a very quick response, but in all fairness, we really can't expect an immediate response on a day when the entire GDC is surely involved with other tournaments.

Congratulations on having perhaps the lightest robot to rank in the top eight in the recent history of FRC!

Thanks for the kudos on making a light weight -- we ran Fezzik all day on Friday at only 87.7 pounds in hopes of being able to add the Speed Racer configuration as on option on Saturday. However, since we had not yet heard a response to our question, on Saturday morning we added 30 pounds of dumbbells to Fezzik's base in order to increase his stability. (He had tipped over twice in Friday's qualification rounds in a way that we had not anticipated -- when carrying a trackball and then bumping up sideways against a trackball which was wedged against the side wall, the two trackballs would smoosh together, storing up energy which would then rebound and flip Fezzik over onto his side. Amazingly, this happened not just once, but twice in qualifying rounds while driving around the field with a trackball while the arm (and the trackball) where in the "stowed" position!)

P.S. I note the CAD drawing of Fezzik in the request for clarification shows 4 CIMs attached to the gearboxes? Just an oversight, I presume? The 4 CIMs were in our initial design of Fezzik; they ended up being reduced to 2 CIMs in order to allow Speed Racer to use the other 2 CIMs and to save weight. We never went back and updated the CAD. (The reduction to 2 CIMs was one of the design compromises we made in order to implement the dual-configuration robot.) After receiving no answer to our Q&A, we would have liked to up Fezzik's drivetrain to 4 CIMs for the elimination rounds on Saturday, but we weren't sure of the effect that change would have upon our autonomous programs as well as potentially significantly changing the handling of the robot immediately before the elimination rounds. We stayed the course with the 2 CIMs for the elimination rounds and ended up having odd "stuttering" problems with our drivetrain that we still haven't been able to explain.

[EricH]

As best as I can recall, the ruling of two robots was based upon R09. ("Each ... team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT ...") Prior to our even arriving at our regional, the GDC had been made aware of our "two robots" and had sent email to the regional's tech inspector that our design did not comply with the intent of that rule. However, as the GDC had never seen our design firsthand or been presented any information from us directly, I was concerned that their decision was based upon a different understanding of our design than what we had actually built, despite the best intentions of all involved parties.
I have to ask how they became aware and whether you were told before the event. Or do you know how they became aware of your intentions?

Q&A is silent in the matter, as far as I can tell.

[Ken Streeter]

Is it legal to mount spare items on different configurations, anticipating that only one configuration (which satisfies all rules on its own) will be used at a time, but exceeding the parts usage limit for a single robot when all configurations are considered together? For example, you have 6 CIM motors; initially, you mount 4 for inspection, and leave 2 aside. Later, you mount 4 to Fezzik and 2 to Speed Racer. Is it valid to store your spare parts attached to unused configurations in this manner? Our interpretation is that the above scenario (pre-attaching parts to a configuration) would be illegal, as our perspective is that a "multi-configuration robot" always includes all components for all configurations, even though only a subset of those components is put on the field. Thus, a team must always be prepared to demonstrate that during a match their robot (the whole multi-configuration set) satisfies the weight rules. Accordingly, our plan for qualification and elimination rounds was to always bring the entire robot (even the configuration not currently in use) out on the cart to the field, but only place the current configuration on the field. (i.e. while the Fezzik configuration was on the field, the Speed Racer chassis would be on the cart. Similarly, while the Speed Racer configuration was on the field, the Fezzik chassis would be on the cart.) In this way, at the beginning or end of any round, we would be prepared (and able) to immediately have the robot re-weighed and/or re-sized to demonstrate compliance with the rules.

[Elgin Clock]

Do you have a picture of both robots as one entity, or as much together as weight allows?

I think what is burning you technically is the bumpers if I am envisioning this correctly.
Do all your bumpers that you would use on every configuration meet standard weight limit requirements?
Should they??

You have a very interesting case and plenty of valid points supporting your thinking, I'm just trying to take the mindset of both "by the rules", and "by the interpretation of the rules" and look for what they saw which would be illegal.

A picture of both configurations together would be good.

[GaryVoshol]

Ken, I think you've spent too much time in FLL. There, clearly the "Robot" is the NXT or RCX brain, and anything else you attach to it. Since you didn't bring an illegal quantity of motors to the "table" at any time, you meet the FLL rules.

I find the definition of "ROBOT" to be somewhat circular:
ROBOT: Anything that has passed ROBOT inspection that a TEAM places on the TRACK prior to the start of a MATCH.(From the "Game" section of the rules no less, not the "Robot" section.) The inspectors get to decide what a ROBOT is as part of their ROBOT inspection. Clearly there has to be a better definition of what constitutes the minimal number of parts that make up a ROBOT. And that definition has to be very carefully worded - what is a "base" or "frame"? are "wheels" absolutely necessary? etc.

If it's any consolation, 1519 has earned itself a unique place in FIRST - the generation of a new rule in next year's manual. ;)

[Brandon Holley]

This is a travesty if I have ever heard one.

Congratualtions on building 2 configurations of your robot within the weight limit. I am quite annoyed at the fact that FIRST has turned its shoulder to creativity with this one. I could understand their ruling if your "robots" each complied with the rules, but if together they were able to comply to the rules of 1 robot, then what is the problem?

Could you imagine strategizing during elims...well which one are they gonna put out there? The awesome autonomous mode and quick lap runner or the effective ball hurdler....that would really keep teams on their toes.



Good job guys, keep us posted if you hear anything.

[Ken Streeter]

I have to ask how they became aware and whether you were told before the event. Or do you know how they became aware of your intentions? Our dual-configuration design was "unveiled" at an event held annually by one of our primary sponsors, BAE Systems, on the Friday prior to ship date. This year, there were over a dozen teams in attendance unveiling their robots. Also in attendance were many of the volunteers who run and staff the BAE Systems Granite State Regional, including the head technical inspector. Our design raised many eyebrows that evening and elicited questions from other teams as to whether our design was legal.

After ship date (and still a few days prior to the start of our regional) I spoke with the head technical inspector for GSR, describing our design and why I thought it was in compliance with the rules. I should note that I personally have the utmost respect and confidence in the GSR head technical inspector; he is an excellent engineer as well as a co-worker and friend of mine. Since our design was way off the beaten path, he inquired of FIRST as to the legality of our approach. He told us of FIRST's answer as soon as possible; we learned of it in the "crate opening" period on Thursday of GSR. The response from FIRST said that if we disagreed with the decision, we would need to submit an official Q&A request on the matter. We did that as quickly as we could, which wasn't until shortly after lunch on Thursday. I presume that an official answer in the Q&A will be forthcoming some time this week.

[Snake Doctor]

Would it have been possible to have the smaller "Racer' bot be the core for the larger bot with the arm? Two drive motors for the core with an additional two drive motors and the arm as add-on to the core frame. Modular bumpers that could be removed from the larger frame and use only part of the bumpers on the smaller "racer" bot. I would assume your inivation in design was not considered for an award because it was not allowed to be used in the competition.

[Ken Streeter]

Do you have a picture of both robots as one entity, or as much together as weight allows? We didn't get a picture of both configurations in the same place at GSR. However, we do have a photo from the "Robot Unveiling" from the Friday prior to ship date:

http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/images/2008-Robot-at-unveiling-medium.jpg

A high-resolution version of the same image is available at http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/images/2008-Robot-at-unveiling.jpg

I think what is burning you technically is the bumpers if I am envisioning this correctly. Do all your bumpers that you would use on every configuration meet standard weight limit requirements? We had a set of six bumpers which weighed exactly 15.0 pounds of which a subset would be mounted on either configuration, as follows:
Bumpers 1 and 2: Side bumpers for "Fezzik"
Bumper 3: Back bumper for "Fezzik"; same bumper could be mounted as the front bumper for the "Speed Racer"
Bumpers 4-6: Side and back bumpers for the "Speed Racer"
The bumpers used in either configuration covered just more than 2/3 of the perimeter for that starting configuration. We actually had a fair bit of difficulty getting all six bumpers into the 15 pound weight limit -- we used 1/20th aluminum angle (instead of the 1/16th we've used in prior years) and carefully chose the placement of our fasteners in order to minimize weight and accommodate both robot configurations.

[Ken Streeter]

Ken, I think you've spent too much time in FLL. There, clearly the "Robot" is the NXT or RCX brain, and anything else you attach to it. Since you didn't bring an illegal quantity of motors to the "table" at any time, you meet the FLL rules. Actually, Gary, I think you've hit the nail on the head -- coming from a FIRST LEGO League mindset, a modular robot configuration is very natural. (It's exactly what we've done for years in FLL, with plug-and-play drive bases, arms, and manipulators being connected to a "core robot" to modify it for different missions.) That approach, however, is not traditional in the FIRST Robotics Competition.

However, to play "devil's advocate" on our design and help illustrate what I think is the alternative perspective on the matter (that we obviously brought two robots, not one dual-configuration robot), let us consider a comparable analogy:

Consider two vehicles for sale at your local Ford dealer: a Ford Escape and a Ford Focus. Let's say you purchase these two vehicles and bring them home with you. After getting them home, you take the engine out of the Focus and have the engine recycled for scrap steel. Now, whenever you want to commute to work you pull the engine out of the Escape and stick it in the Ford Focus. When the weekend arrives and you want to go offroading, you pull the engine again and stick it into the Escape. Do you have one vehicle, or two? Sure looks and feels like two vehicles to me!

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Ken,
Without really seeing the mechanisms in person, I would have to agree with the decision that was rendered at GSR based on the description and photos. A rather simple test in testing robot configurations is whether one supports the other as in a detachable arm or other component. If you consider Speed racer to be an attachment it would need to be "attched" to your other base. Moving electronics from one base that drives to another base that drives does not, in my mind, represent two attachments but two separate robots. That does not preclude your attempt to think outside the box and design a unique solution that potentially could win on several levels. I applaud your ability to build both pieces and stay below the 120 lb limit. R12 makes an example for weigh in but the example further describes the multiple configuration.

[Brandon Holley]

Actually, Gary, I think you've hit the nail on the head -- coming from a FIRST LEGO League mindset, a modular robot configuration is very natural. (It's exactly what we've done for years in FLL, with plug-and-play drive bases, arms, and manipulators being connected to a "core robot" to modify it for different missions.) That approach, however, is not traditional in the FIRST Robotics Competition.

However, to play "devil's advocate" on our design and help illustrate what I think is the alternative perspective on the matter (that we obviously brought two robots, not one dual-configuration robot), let us consider a comparable analogy:

Consider two vehicles for sale at your local Ford dealer: a Ford Escape and a Ford Focus. Let's say you purchase these two vehicles and bring them home with you. After getting them home, you take the engine out of the Focus and have the engine recycled for scrap steel. Now, whenever you want to commute to work you pull the engine out of the Escape and stick it in the Ford Focus. When the weekend arrives and you want to go offroading, you pull the engine again and stick it into the Escape. Do you have one vehicle, or two? Sure looks and feels like two vehicles to me!

yeah, but you don't have the ability to use the 2 vehicles at the same time, and at any given time only 1 of the vehicles will be in use.....i think thats what clinches it for me, the fact that even though you have 2 separate systems, only 1 will be in use at any given time.

[Tristan Lall]

Consider two vehicles for sale at your local Ford dealer: a Ford Escape and a Ford Focus. Let's say you purchase these two vehicles and bring them home with you. After getting them home, you take the engine out of the Focus and have the engine recycled for scrap steel. Now, whenever you want to commute to work you pull the engine out of the Escape and stick it in the Ford Focus. When the weekend arrives and you want to go offroading, you pull the engine again and stick it into the Escape. Do you have one vehicle, or two? Sure looks and feels like two vehicles to me!Continuing the thought experiment, it seems necessary that we examine our definition of a vehicle. There's an argument to be made that if we don't rely on our preconceived notion of what a Ford is, then we might find that our system satisfies all of the criteria placed upon it, even though it is, to the casual observer, two vehicles.

Consider an alternative case: say we have the Escape, and we buy all of the parts needed to assemble a Focus, except the engine. Initially, by all accounts, we possess a vehicle and a pile of parts. Then, we remove the engine from the Escape, and start bolting Focus parts on to it. At this point, we have a vehicle without an engine (is that still a vehicle?), and a pile of parts. At what point do we declare that we no longer have a pile of parts, and instead have a Ford Focus? That's the problem here: the robot definition doesn't specify how we might make that decision. To the outside observer, while the appearance of two robots or two vehicles may seem self-evident, in reality, the robot construction process more closely approximates this procedure, and, in my opinion, ought to be treated as such.

[diesel]

[QUOTE=Al Skierkiewicz;711746]
Without really seeing the mechanisms in person, I would have to agree with the decision that was rendered at GSR based on the description and photos. A rather simple test in testing robot configurations is whether one supports the other as in a detachable arm or other component. If you consider Speed racer to be an attachment it would need to be "attched" to your other base. Moving electronics from one base that drives to another base that drives does not, in my mind, represent two attachments but two separate robots. QUOTE]

I'm sorry but I will have to respectfully disagree with you. In the rules I don't recall a rule on how many componets can be switched, just a weight rule. Therefore I see this teams as swapping out everything but there electronics board, as being one 'bot.

I believe when trying to figure out a 'base' for a robot, (in which the componets are swaped off of and put onto) that this topic gets confusing. BUT in the rules there is no mention of a 'base'.

And those are two great looking robots.

[dtengineering]

The catch in the car example is that there is usually a clear definition of what constitutes a vehicle for registration purposes. Each vehicle frame and each vehicle engine is given a serial number. Typically it is the vehicle frame's serial number that is registered, not the vehicle engine's. Thus the registration rules (in most provinces/states, I presume) are quite clear that the vehicle is the frame... and that you can swap out engines as much as you like, so long as you comply with all safety and emissions guidelines. You can read the rules and clearly predict how they will be interpreted.

FIRST has no such definition of what a robot is. You cannot read the rules and clearly predict how they will be interpreted in this case. I disagree with the assumption that the robot is what supports the various configurations... that is neither stated in the rules, nor obvious. Does this mean that the wheels are the robot? The tires?

There will likely be a new rule generated for next year, but in the meantime you deserved the benefit of the doubt and official recognition for your creativity.

And thanks for the clarification on the motors and such.

Jason

[ALIBI]

There is no doubt that the definition of a robot is pretty much not defined. Actually, I could not find ROBOT defined in the definitions. I will be interested to see what the GDC replys with. The example in <R12> illustrates a basic drive train platform with two versions of game piece manipulators, not two distinct drive train platforms. Besides, <R12> deals with weight, not the basic robot. <R09> specifies ONE ROBOT. As soon as you move the RC from one basic drive train platform to another basic drive train, you have created "TWO ROBOTS". The officials are powerless to make any formal rulings on your robot design until the regional actually starts and you bring your robot for inspection. Regardless, you still have the option to choose one or the other for the entire regional which in itself is a good plan. If your more robust drive train with the manipulator was an attachment to your smaller speedster, I would have said you were OK, as long as your speedster stayed attached to the larger drive train while competing. You would then have been able to detach the larger drive train/manipulator from your speedster and used only the speedster if you wanted. I do commend you for your effort.

EDIT: If you were permitted to do this, what would keep teams from puting a half dozen robots in their crate and then deciding which robot(s) they bring to the inspection station? Or, if they find out that the one or two they chose don't work well, then return to the inspection station with something totally different after a couple of practice matches?

Part of me does agree with Jason, there is no clear definition of ROBOT and since this appears to be an isolated case, you should have at least been given the benefit of a doubt this season.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Ken,
Without really seeing the mechanisms in person, I would have to agree with the decision that was rendered at GSR based on the description and photos. A rather simple test in testing robot configurations is whether one supports the other as in a detachable arm or other component. If you consider Speed racer to be an attachment it would need to be "attched" to your other base. Moving electronics from one base that drives to another base that drives does not, in my mind, represent two attachments but two separate robots. That does not preclude your attempt to think outside the box and design a unique solution that potentially could win on several levels. I applaud your ability to build both pieces and stay below the 120 lb limit. R12 makes an example for weigh in but the example further describes the multiple configuration.

Al,

I disagree with you. The issue is what defines a robot, Is the robot that chassis or the robot controller? It's much like what is a person, the brain or the body.

In my personal view the robot controller (brains) is the robot. The rest is just attachments.

At what point does the "modular" become a new robot? When someone changes wheels? Arms? chassis? where is the line?

It truely saddens me to see that even in FIRST, innovation and inspiration is shunned and punished because it does not 'conform' to their perceptions of what is supposed to be.

Just my 2 cents.

[MrForbes]

Too late now....but I think a way to have done what you wanted legally would be to have a small drive base (perhaps a 2wd squarebot) to which you add a larger framework with two more drive wheels, and the mechanism. I think the problem is that you have two mostly complete robots (minus electronics), not a complete robot plus some other parts.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

In reading the replies thus far, I have thought the solution put forth by Jim above is actually acceptable. Remember that in my original post I did not specify a base nor did I define a robot as a particular assembly of certain components for the simple reason that the robot section of the rules does not. I was just rendering an opinion based on the data present in this thread. However, I have been thinking about this problem throughout the morning and I have read through Rev E again and let me tell you what inspectors must look for while making these decisions.
Electrical:
Under R50 a robot and it's electrical components must be wired as shown in the Electrical Distribution Diagram. In this case, there are two such distributions. Not provided for in the rules are two main breakers, two Anderson connectors, two Rockwell blocks for main power distro, or two places in which to connect the main battery. Under R43 only one main battery will feed the robot. In this case you could interpret this rule either way but in strict interpretation an attachment should be fed from just one main distribution and one main battery not from either of two separate electrical systems. Under R55, the robot controller is fed from one 20 amp circuit breaker, not one of two.
Mechanical:
Under definitions..."MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on
the ROBOT." Please note the singular reference of ROBOT as it is used throughout the ROBOT manual.
<R09> Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition. That ROBOT shall fully comply with all rules specified in the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition manual.
Under the first item in the Robot Inspection Checklist (which references a variety of rules) the robot and attachment(s) must fit inside the sizing box unconstrained. It was not mentioned if the robot passed this test.
Now certainly you could find other examples in the rules but when looked at in total, you can see how I came to my opinion. Each of the items mentioned imply that there is a logical electrical flow from one main battery through one main circuit breaker to one power distribution block to breaker panel(s). Logic follows that an "attachment" would be fed from breakers on the existing panels not from a separate power distribution. Everything points to a logical device that can be called a robot as it stands alone. You can consider your own logical tests but each regional team must consider all of these and more when determining if a team is in compliance. You make the call on this one. Can you really call Speed Racer an attachment? If so, how do you meet the other tests.
Now all of this being said, remember that I applaud this team's thinking outside the box. I do not wish them to be penalized nor am I chastizing them for their unique design. An inspector is responsible for keeping the playing field level by insuring that a robot is in compliance with the rules via the Inspection Checklist. I even agree with Jim above, if Speed Racer, the battery and control system and power distro somehow fit into the larger robot frame, (even if Speed Racer's wheels were off the floor) and the larger robot frame derived power from the smaller and both fit in the sizing box unconstrained, it might be a legal robot in all of the definitions we have been trained to inspect.

[EricH]

In reading the replies thus far, I have thought the solution put forth by Jim above is actually acceptable. Remember that in my original post I did not specify a base nor did I define a robot as a particular assembly of certain components for the simple reason that the robot section of the rules does not. I was just rendering an opinion based on the data present in this thread. However, I have been thinking about this problem throughout the morning and I have read through Rev E again and let me tell you what inspectors must look for while making these decisions.
Electrical:
Under R50 a robot and it's electrical components must be wired as shown in the Electrical Distribution Diagram. In this case, there are two such distributions. Not provided for in the rules are two main breakers, two Anderson connectors, two Rockwell blocks for main power distro, or two places in which to connect the main battery. Under R43 only one main battery will feed the robot. In this case you could interpret this rule either way but in strict interpretation an attachment should be fed from just one main distribution and one main battery not from either of two separate electrical systems. Under R55, the robot controller is fed from one 20 amp circuit breaker, not one of two.
Al, if they had all their electrical in one unit (e.g. 1 RC, 1 main breaker, 1 distribution block, 1 main battery, etc), would that be legal from an electrical standpoint?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Eric,
I am trying to show that no one specific rule will qualify a robot. It is a variety of tests. Your example begins to make a distinction between a 'robot" and an "attachment".

[Ken Streeter]

Thanks, Al, for sharing your perspective on this. As a long-time FIRST inspector, your view is particularly helpful in the discussion.

Electrical: Under R50 a robot and it's electrical components must be wired as shown in the Electrical Distribution Diagram. In this case, there are two such distributions. Not provided for in the rules are two main breakers, two Anderson connectors, two Rockwell blocks for main power distro, or two places in which to connect the main battery. Under R43 only one main battery will feed the robot. In the case of Fezzik and Speed Racer, one electrical board was moved back and forth between the two drive base configurations. There is only one main breaker, one Anderson connector, and one Rockwell block. (There is more about this in the Multi-configuration Robot Description (http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/Team-1519-Multi-Configuration-Robot.pdf) that we submitted to the official Q&A.)

Mechanical: Under the first item in the Robot Inspection Checklist (which references a variety of rules) the robot and attachment(s) must fit inside the sizing box unconstrained. It was not mentioned if the robot passed this test. Each of Fezzik and Speed Racer fit inside the sizing box unconstrained. If necessary for sizing, we could have placed Speed Racer on Fezzik, but that would NOT have been one of our starting configurations.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Ken,
Thanks for the clarification of only one electrical board having all parts on it. Unfortunately, that makes it harder to make a decision from afar. Let's wait and see what the GDC decides. Anything beyond that is speculation. BTW, I know the GDC folks do watch CD from time to time and are likely reading his thread. They do not ask for my input so any of what I have posted is my opinion only and does not come from any discussion with them or any FIRST staffer. Any similarity in opinions is purely coincidental.

[Vikesrock]

Ruling is in - 2 robots.


It's unfortunate that this was not asked prior to the competition. The timing for a question like this would be more appropriate early in the build season. Building and bringing two robots that fit the criteria of one robot is not within the intent of the rules.

Rule <R09> expressly states that teams may only enter ONE (1) Robot into the competition.

Rule <R12> describes the basic structure of the robot plus additional mechanisms that are required at inspection. Two robots that share a control system and power supply do not fit this "basic" plus "additional" components since both robots are basic robot structures.

Rule <R114> claims THE (implication, ONE) Robot must be presented with all Mechanisms and that Mechanisms may be removed or reconfigured between matches. A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT.

The described robots are also in violation of the bumper construction rules. Rule <R08> permits one set of bumpers, weighing no more than 15 pounds, and extending no more than 3-1/2 inches from the 28 x 38 x 60 volume limits of the robot. There are two robot chassis and drive systems, with two sets of bumpers. But there is no way that the full set of bumpers (both sets) can be mounted on the (one - either one) robot and satisfy Rule <R08>.

The rules listed above make it clear that teams may enter one robot, not two and trade between the two, into the competition. Futhermore, we ask that you reread Section 8.3. We expect teams to use common sense rather than "lawyering" interpretations and splitting hairs over precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8985

[BenjyPoore]

Ruling is in - 2 robots.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8985

Hmm that is kinda disappointing. It does seem that they don't understand that the two configurations use one set of bumpers that weighs exactly 15 pounds. That set includes 6 separate bumpers; we just choose to not put all of them on at one time. It doesn't matter as long as we cover 66% of the frame, right?

The part about rule <R114>: We only have one robot. According to us, the "robot" is the electrical board. The two bases are the attachments. All parts would be presented at the inspection. The rule says that we can use a subset of the mechanisms in a match, which we would have done.

I guess the point which makes or breaks the decision is what you define as the "basic robot structure" in rule <R12>. We call that the electrical board. The GDC calls it the robot frame.

Such a pity they didn't allow it.:(

[vivek16]

yeah, but you don't have the ability to use the 2 vehicles at the same time, and at any given time only 1 of the vehicles will be in use.....i think thats what clinches it for me, the fact that even though you have 2 separate systems, only 1 will be in use at any given time.

Yeah, but I think that was the thing. They still have 2 separate systems and although they made them fit in the rules, it was still 2 separate systems and from a certain point of view, two separate robots.

It really is too bad. I was looking forward to watching speed racer. :(

[Matt H.]

I believe that the game design committee's response is flippant and not in the spirit of first. The design presented was incredibly creative and their own ruling would seem to make the 1519 design legal.

Unless I'm mistaken
"A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT"
would make their design legal.

The barb about lawyering at the end of the statement was unnecessary and not at all characteristic of the teams attitude as the have attempted to resolve the problem.

I'm still of the opinion that the RC is the robot and any additional parts are mechanisms, but I guess first would rather keep their competitions drab and beat down innovation.

[Vogel648]

Their point with the bumpers is not all could be attached legally to your robot at once. They would have to, as I understand it.
Edit: and the speed racer was not providing functionality on the fezzik configuration and vice versa, correct? I mean, since they're not providing functionality they can't be called mechanisms.

I certainly understand where they're coming from

[GaryVoshol]

So this means that, in theory, a team can't have differing bumper configurations? Say that sometimes they want to use a full 100% enclosing set, and another time a minimal 67% set?

I don't dispute the GDC's right to call this 2 robots vs. one, and I don't think Ken and the rest of team 1519 dispute it either. But I don't think the GDC should have accused them of attempting to lawyer the rules, when there is no clear rule defining what a ROBOT is. As I pointed out above, this is a completely valid interpretation following FLL rules, where the ROBOT is specifically defined as the NXT/RCX "brain" plus anything attached to it. In the absence of a FRC definition, 1519's interpretation of the ROBOT being the required parts - RC, Rockwell, Fuse block, etc - plus various attachments (which in their case includes frames, motors and wheels) is reasonably valid.

Perhaps a ruling should have been requested of the GDC during build season, but any team submitting a Q&A takes the risk that other teams will copy their designs, and 1519 took the alternative risk that their unique design would be allowed. They were not prohibited from playing because of the ruling, they were just restricted in their game play. That's the risk they willingly took.

[Kingofl337]

After being at GSR and having seen both robots it really felt to me like they were two unique machines. Had smaller robot shared gearboxes, motors, battery holder and electronics you probably would have passed inspection. You could have used chain or gears to connect the two drive trains together and had the robot latch into place. This more then likely would have satisfied the rules. It was a great idea guys, if for nothing else trying to do it.

[BenjyPoore]

After being at GSR and having seen both robots it really felt to me like they were two unique machines. Had smaller robot shared gearboxes, motors, battery holder and electronics you probably would have passed inspection. You could have used chain or gears to connect the two drive trains together and had the robot latch into place. This more then likely would have satisfied the rules. It was a great idea guys, if for nothing else trying to do it.
When we had to decide to use the hurdler robot, we zip-tied 30 lbs of dumbells to it to give greater pushing power. If there was room, we would have bolted the Speed Racer on to illustrate our point.:D

[Tim Arnold]

If there was room, we would have bolted the Speed Racer on to illustrate our point.
I suspect this is an important part of the ruling, and the biggest difference in my mind from it being "1 robot". If the speed racer config was PART the Fezzik (or at least attached together), and could be separated and leaving Fezzik behind, I suspect you wouldn't have had problems. Speed racer would essentially be a non-functional decoration component while on Fezzik.

If you wanted to bad enough, it doesn't seem to me like this is outlawed, even now. If you could make room, instead of dumbells, bolt on Speed Racer. It would look like one robot, and you could have all bumpers attached simultaneously for inspection. And to further satisfy the naysayers, perhaps you could leave the electronics in Speed racer and simply swap the motor cables and unbolt Speed Racer to change configurations.

[jgannon]

Initially I felt very strongly in 1519's favor. After reviewing this ruling, particularly the claim with respect to <R114>, I'm fairly confident that their design was unfortunately illegal. Nonetheless, I am appalled by the last paragraph of the GDC's reply. We all know that there are members of the GDC who read these forums, and nobody who has read Ken's words here could possibly think that 1519 was trying to "lawyer" loopholes or split hairs. They read the rules, applied common sense, and designed what they believed to be a creative and award-worthy solution to the year's challenge. To accuse a team of trying to pull a fast one on FIRST, particularly in light of the team's gracious handling of the situation, is surprisingly unprofessional. I fully expect that this Q&A response will be revised to embody the respect owed to any competitor who tries their best to follow the rules.

[Tristan Lall]

Rule <R09> expressly states that teams may only enter ONE (1) Robot into the competition.I have to assume that this is stated merely as a clarification. Using this as an argument for one position or another would be circular reasoning, because the whole point of the question was to better define what a robot actually is.

Rule <R12> describes the basic structure of the robot plus additional mechanisms that are required at inspection. Two robots that share a control system and power supply do not fit this "basic" plus "additional" components since both robots are basic robot structures.The "basic ROBOT structure" is not defined in the rules. Judging by 1519's brief, they consider that structure to be their electronics board, as it is common to both configurations.

It would be perfectly reasonably to call their structure (i.e. the electronics board) basic, because it forms part of the robot which is used in every configuration. The word structure does not solely imply the set of components bearing the principal chassis loads. Even if it did imply that, how would this be reliably and repeatably testable by an inspector, given the multitude of robot designs out there? If it's not testable, it comes down to the official's best guess, and that's a situation that should be avoided, to maximize the consistency of officiation.

Rule <R114> claims THE (implication, ONE) Robot must be presented with all Mechanisms and that Mechanisms may be removed or reconfigured between matches. A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT.Again, the point of the original question was to ask whether the set of components constituted a robot, or if there were indeed two. It's circular to use this as justification, because the team is contending that there is only one robot. For 1519 to have violated <R114>'s implication, one would have had to presuppose that there were two robots present. Apart from the business about presupposing one robot or two, it's clear that the team took great pains to comply with this rule.

Also, this is why lawyers draft contracts stating that "instances of the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural, and vice versa". It's not there to obsfuscate, though that may be an occasional side effect.

The described robots are also in violation of the bumper construction rules. Rule <R08> permits one set of bumpers, weighing no more than 15 pounds, and extending no more than 3-1/2 inches from the 28 x 38 x 60 volume limits of the robot. There are two robot chassis and drive systems, with two sets of bumpers. But there is no way that the full set of bumpers (both sets) can be mounted on the (one - either one) robot and satisfy Rule <R08>.<R08> does not specify "one set of bumpers" or anything to that effect. It is a list of requirements for whatever bumpers a team chooses to use. It is never stated that all bumpers must be used in a given configuration.

Answers like this one are the reason why it's important to establish and state clearly an order of precedence among official FIRST communications. When there's a discrepancy, nobody knows what to trust.

Also, I wonder how much of the GDC's decision was based upon the idea of maintaining consistency between events. That's a major goal among inspectors, and FIRST in general. Could it be that they were rationalizing a call that they didn't agree with, in order to prevent varying interpretations of the rule from being enforced?

Alternatively, was the GDC just trying to read their original intent into the rules, rather than thorougly considering the position they were in effect advancing? If the intent behind the definition of a robot was so important, couldn't it have been stated unambiguously in the first place?

[Ken Streeter]

I was just looking at this thread and noticed in the "Similar Threads" section of the bottom of the page (which I usually just ignore) that Team 2186 started a thread right after kickoff (Dual Robots (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61007)) with what sounds like a very similar design to what we built with Fezzik and Speed Racer. I wonder if they stuck with that design? Is theirs going to be ruled illegal, too, or is it sufficiently different that they'll be ok?

[Kevin Sevcik]

I have to say that Tristan covered most of the points I was going to. Taking the answer from the GDC as a whole, it really feels to me like reasoning they came up with after they decided to disallow 1519's design. I'm not even convinced it makes any logical sense. As pointed out, a ROBOT is explicitly defined as something that's passed inspection. Declaring that you can't pass inspection because you have two things that have passed inspection clearly is nonsense. If you posit that pre-inspection a robot must be something that you're trying to get to pass inspection.... Well they were only trying to pass one thing through inspection.

As Tristan pointed out, the bumper rules only state that your bumpers in total must weigh less than 15 lbs and that your robot must have 2/3rds the perimeter covered. If the GDC is ruling that any bumpers you bring to the competition must always be attached to your robot.... Well they needed to say that somewhere, as it's a pretty restrictive and important rule. If you designed a modular robot that fit the GDC's arbitrary preconceived notions of what they know you know they were thinking, but you needed to remove the back bumper to make the 80" rule with your hurdler.... well you'd be in trouble. Will refs start DQing rookies for sending robots out missing a bumper they had on site even though they're still covering 67% of the robot?

As to the R114 reference, I don't really see how Fezzik and Speed Racer aren't mechanisms. They both provide specific functionality. Is the GDC claiming that if you have a module that does more than one thing, that it's illegal? While I know previous years rules don't apply, I know I've seen modules more complicated than a single motor used before. 57's even done so. And again, they just refer back to mechanisms ON THE ROBOT without bothering to define what a robot is.

And finally, as to their reasoning with R12 and "basic ROBOT structure"... I think a casual reading of the example given gives the impression that the drive train plus manipulators solution was the solution of that particular team. I mean, it says right there that that was how they decided to do it.

I'm not disputing the GDC's authority to make this ruling, but I think they have a responsibility to fairly, clearly, and above all logically explain their ruling. Circular reasoning and expressions of "Hmph. Well you should've known we wouldn't allow this." don't meet this standard for me. I realize this is clearly something they had never considered before and that they were probably caught by surprise. But I think that means they should reread the rules as they wrote them and rules based on that. I seem to recall a contentious issue (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25441&highlight=collaboration) that came up a few years ago after the ship date where the GDC ruled (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26133&highlight=collaboration) very clearly on a very straight forward reading of the rules. And pointed out some rather restrictive preconceptions many of us were working under at the time. I find it ironic in the extreme that this time the GDC has decided that their preconceived notions are the ones that win. If they decided that they obviously left out a proper definition of a robot from the rules, at least man up and say so an give a clear definition that can be worked from. I ask this because the response they've given to this Q&A is so vague as to be completely useless for any other ruling that might need to be made going forward.

[Dan Petrovic]

Well. It seems like 1519 will join the ranks of teams that have created rules by bringing up a situation that caused controversy. See Wildstang's stacking robots in 2007 and 121's tipping mechanism in 1997 (and maybe other years?).

I think we will now see a definition of ROBOT that is more descriptive than the definition they give us now.

[thefro526]

Personally I think the GDC should have ruled this legal. While I don't like the idea of having an opponent switch robots with a moments notice, I can appreciate 1519's ability to think outside of the box and use a strategy which I totally believe is within the rules. Possibly you could do what the tecknokats (sp) team 45 did in 03 and loan the configuration to a team that needs it. If I remember correctly the loaned there second robot (the ball drive robot ) to some other team who was experiencing difficulties.

[dtengineering]

Wow. What a poor, poor ruling from GDC, especially the comment about "lawyering" the rules and looking for loopholes. That was just plain unnecessary and inappropriate. If anyone is guilty of that in this case it is GDC in seeking some faint excuse to justify a very unfortunate ruling. If 1519 is guilty of anything it is guilty of great engineering, creativity and innovation.

Someone in FIRST needs to demonstrate the gracious professionalism required to say, "Well... that isn't what we meant... but it is what we said." and enforce the rules as written, not as intended. Looks like when the going gets tough that the expectation of GP only really applies to teams.

The GDC arguments have been throughly picked apart already in this thread, and I have nothing to add other than my disappointment in this ruling. GDC does a great job, and a difficult job, and 99.9% of the time I can agree with or accept their rulings without protest. In this case, however, I cannot. Perhaps all teams with four bumpers should leave one in the pit for a match just to demonstrate solidarity with 1519 and make it quite clear that just because a team has 15 pounds of bumpers doesn't mean they have to use all 15 pounds all the time.

Thank goodness that 1519 and Fezzik did so well without the help of Speed Racer... perhaps they even did better because they now had 30 lbs to ballast with that they would have been unable to use had Speed Racer been ruled an attachment, but a fortunate outcome hardly makes up for an unfortunate ruling.

Jason

[MrForbes]

<devil's advocate>
Perhaps this is how the GDC sees the issue (it is pretty much how I see it):


There are what appear to be two robots, although one is missing it's electronics. The team is using a "lawyer" interpretation of the rules to say that only one of them is really a robot, the other is just a mechanism, even though it is obvious by just looking at them that they are indeed both robots.


I realize I'm in the minority among those who are posting on this thread....but come on, you all know what a robot looks like, and what a mechanism looks like. Speed racer looks like a robot, it does not look like just a mechanism. Why should the GDC see it any differently just because the rules don't precisely define what comprises a "ROBOT"? Isn't the general term well enough understood among us folks who design, build, and play with robots that it doesn't need a precise definition?

</devil's advocate>

[BHS_STopping]

I think that what may be a problem for the GDC, in this case, is that it is pretty difficult to create a clear-cut definition of a "robot" without being incredibly intricate or complicated. As we have seen many machines in competition, each robot holds its own unique, qualitative characteristics. Even though the GDC has not yet established a comprehensive definition of a "robot," it appears to me that currently, a robot must consist of any and all required components specified in the rulebook. As was stated before, a cardboard box with a robot controller, a flag holder, and a few other items could be considered a robot. In practice, however, "common sense" would dictate that such a thing really isn't a robot. Such a thing, however, is legal, although I severely doubt it would pass inspection in such a state.

I'm afraid that at the current moment, the situation is pretty much ambiguous as to its "legality." Sure, the rules say that such a configuration is legal, in that it meets all specified criteria for the definition of a robot. My opinion is that, even though 1519 found what the GDC considers a "loophole," it appears that it was in 1519's interest to try and flex their creativity while still adhering to the above rules and criteria. I severely doubt that 1519 had any malicious intentions to try and deceive the GDC with their design. I believe that 1519 tried too hard to try and make their creation(s) legal and unproblematic for the inspectors to have part of their design dismissed outright.

Perhaps in the future, the GDC will be able to predict this sort of incident and prevent such a controversial topic from repeating itself. As it stands, I see that 1519's machines/mechanisms can certainly qualify as a single robot if the literal interpretation of this rule is taken. If they are able to fix their bumper issue, I believe that they should be able to compete with both machines.

I can understand the GDC's stance on this overall issue, for it is a difficult one to judge, especially given the circumstances of the situation. I also believe that it would have been very beneficial (and prevented a load of controversy) if 1519 had asked about this in the Q&A earlier in the season, especially if there was any sense of ambiguity as to the legitimacy of their design. It's kind of understandable too that they hadn't asked until they were completely finished, and I can vouch that sometimes my mind is always wandering in a place much different from the rulebooks. ;)

If I remember correctly, I thought that FIRST gave the benefit of the doubt to the teams regarding an issue such as this. Given my observations of this discussion and 1519's behavior, it seems to me that their team meant, in no way, to deceive the GDC and compromise the integrity of this year's game. I do find it quite interesting that 1519 is capable of creating excellent machines which are well suited for this year's game. If it counts for anything, I can at least say that 1519 is the only team to experience both sides of the spectrum: Building a Racer and a Hurdler in one season is certainly an admirable accomplishment!

[Bongle]

<devil's advocate>
Perhaps this is how the GDC sees the issue (it is pretty much how I see it):


There are what appear to be two robots, although one is missing it's electronics. The team is using a "lawyer" interpretation of the rules to say that only one of them is really a robot, the other is just a mechanism, even though it is obvious by just looking at them that they are indeed both robots.


I realize I'm in the minority among those who are posting on this thread....but come on, you all know what a robot looks like, and what a mechanism looks like. Speed racer looks like a robot, it does not look like just a mechanism. Why should the GDC see it any differently just because the rules don't precisely define what comprises a "ROBOT"? Isn't the general term well enough understood among us folks who design, build, and play with robots that it doesn't need a precise definition?

</devil's advocate>

But the problem is that "looks like a robot implies it is a robot" is not in the current year's rules, and "looks like a robot implies it is a robot" is very vague. What makes it look like a robot? the wheels? the victors? the square-ness? Any of those are fine reasons to say something is a robot, but they weren't in the rules. How much of speed racer would 1519 have had to include as part of their swappable kernel before this was legal? The frame? the frame and wheels? Don't know? That's the problem.


I think that what may be a problem for the GDC, in this case, is that it is pretty difficult to create a clear-cut definition of a "robot" without being incredibly intricate or complicated.
I think the GDC will be able to prevent this next year without defining a robot. If the rules for swappable mechanisms include a clause saying "swapped mechanisms may not touch the ground in the robot's starting configuration" or "swapped mechanisms may not interact with the ground to move the robot", then it would disqualify 1519 cleanly and with minimum sentences.

[MrForbes]

Yes, I was just trying to show you another way of looking at it that does not involve careful scrutiny of the rules...step back and look at the big picture. Speed Racer is a whole robot, it's not a mechanism, you can tell just by looking at it, without referring to any rules at all, by using your common robot sense.

Perhaps this is what the GDC did. It's what I did.

[Woody1458]

As all forseeable responces to this issue have been post I wish to just say I feel for the members of 1519 that put so much effort, thought, engineering, and building into a revolurionary creative design that will never reach the admiration it deserves.


BTW check the sig

[Alan Anderson]

...you can tell just by looking at it, without referring to any rules at all...

If you're going to decide something without using the rules, there's no way to know whether someone else will decide the same thing. The objective standard is the collection of rules, not "common sense".

I don't see anything in the rules that makes 1519's paratwa-bot illegal. I don't see their solution as exploiting a loophole. On the contrary, I'm in awe of the creative outside-the-box thinking that devised it. I am disappointed by the GDC's decision on the matter, I am dismayed by the weak arguments used to support the decision, and I am discouraged by the tone of the Q&A response. But I accept the decision and I move on, expecting that next year's manual will address the issue more solidly.

[Vikesrock]

Actually a FIRST robot is defined in the rules in section 8.1.1 of the manual

A FIRST robot is a remotely operated vehicle designed and built by a FIRST Robotic Competition team
to perform specific tasks when competing in the 2008 competition “FIRST Overdrive.”

So a robot must be:

1. Designed and built by a FRC team (true for both configurations)
2. Remotely Operated (As team 1519 had 1 electronics board, I would contend that they only had one object that could be properly described as remotely operated at any given time)
3. Be designed to perform specific tasks (check)

This definition would tend to support the "brains constitute a robot" theory as the RC, main battery and associated distribution (main breaker, rockwell block and breaker panel), backup battery and radio would be the minimum necessary to be remotely operated and still comply with all other specifications in the rules.

I also would like to disagree with Squirrel's "if it looks like a robot" theory. If we limit it to FIRST robots, I have never seen a FIRST robot without wheels, treads or another method of moving the robot base. However, I could see a robot being designed for, say, the 2006 game, that would be designed to complete specific tasks without the need for the base to move. To me it would not look like a robot, but it would meet all specifications outlined in the rules and should be allowed to compete. If we move outside the realm of FIRST things get far more interesting. Does this thing (http://http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/MolecubesInMotion.jpg) look like a robot? How about this (http://crave.cnet.com/i/bto/20071004/DARPA_540x361.jpg)? To me that first one looks like a sculpture and the second one looks like a car; however, both of these things are actually robots.

I feel this rule definitely needs to be reviewed and dealt with more thoroughly as I can find nothing in the current rules to rule against the following scenario:

Redateam begins the competition season by brainstorming ideas regarding this years challenge. They cannot choose between two excellent ideas and decide that their resources will allow them to pursue both. They design the robots such that the same electronics board (including a mount for the battery) can be used on both. As build season raps up they still cannot decide which machine is better suited to the task. In a stroke of genius Redateam removes the electronics board from Redabot2 and jams Redabot1 and an electronic-less Redabot2 into their crate for shipping to the Magnolia Regional.

Between ship and the Magnolia regional, Redateam decides they will go with Redabot1. They arrive at the regional, unpack their crate and proceed to have Redabot1 inspected. It weighs in at 119.5 lbs and passes all inspection criteria. They begin participating in practice matches and decide to reverse their decision and use Redabot2.

Redateam returns to their pit and begins by unbolting their electronics board from Redabot1. They then attach it to Redabot2. As they have modified their robot they ask for and receive a complete reinspection of their robot. It is inspected by a different inspector than the first. Finding Redabot2 to be in compliance with all robot rules, the inspector clears it for play.

As Redabot2 as shipped was not a remotely operated vehicle, it would not qualify as a robot under the 2008 manual. Thus, Redateam did not at any time possess 2 robots at the regional.


If you feel that you have justification for the above scenario being illegal, what about if they only shipped the manipulator of Redabot2 and swapped it onto Redabot1? What if they fabricated a new manipulator at competition and placed it on Redabot1? What if they fabricated a new drive base and manipulator and placed the electronics from Redabot1 onto it? I do not see any rules that clearly demonstrate to me that any of these scenarios is either legal or illegal. In this event I believe that the team must be given the benefit of the doubt and that their configuration must be allowed.

This scenario is slightly different than 1519's as Redateam would have to have their robot reinspected each time they wished to change configurations, but I think it is actually much farther from the spirit of the rules than 1519's situation.

[Fastnate]

Do you have a picture of both robots as one entity, or as much together as weight allows?

I think what is burning you technically is the bumpers if I am envisioning this correctly.
Do all your bumpers that you would use on every configuration meet standard weight limit requirements?
Should they??

You have a very interesting case and plenty of valid points supporting your thinking, I'm just trying to take the mindset of both "by the rules", and "by the interpretation of the rules" and look for what they saw which would be illegal.

A picture of both configurations together would be good.


Yep!
We have bumpers for both configurations which combined meet the 15lb weight limit, and wrap around limits for the frames.
The back bumper for Fezzik is the front bumper for Mach 6.

[Matt H.]

Originally Posted by Scenario
Redateam begins the competition season by brainstorming ideas regarding this years challenge. They cannot choose between two excellent ideas and decide that their resources will allow them to pursue both. They design the robots such that the same electronics board (including a mount for the battery) can be used on both. As build season raps up they still cannot decide which machine is better suited to the task. In a stroke of genius Redateam removes the electronics board from Redabot2 and jams Redabot1 and an electronic-less Redabot2 into their crate for shipping to the Magnolia Regional.

Between ship and the Magnolia regional, Redateam decides they will go with Redabot1. They arrive at the regional, unpack their crate and proceed to have Redabot1 inspected. It weighs in at 119.5 lbs and passes all inspection criteria. They begin participating in practice matches and decide to reverse their decision and use Redabot2.

Redateam returns to their pit and begins by unbolting their electronics board from Redabot1. They then attach it to Redabot2. As they have modified their robot they ask for and receive a complete reinspection of their robot. It is inspected by a different inspector than the first. Finding Redabot2 to be in compliance with all robot rules, the inspector clears it for play.

As Redabot2 as shipped was not a remotely operated vehicle, it would not qualify as a robot under the 2008 manual. Thus, Redateam did not at any time possess 2 robots at the regional.

This scenario is illegal because the two "mechanisms" together must make the weight limit--which is the limiting factor preventing teams from shipping 1000 robots and what made this such a design challenge for 1519. If your above scenario the sum of the masses of the two robots is well about 120lbs making it illegal. The two robots 1519 had weight 120lbs together.

I agree that squirrel's idea that we know what a robot looks like is flawed--such an approach encourages making the same first robot continuously rather than branching out and changing with time. I'm sure there is nothing innovative about every team building a 6wheel drive rectangular robot which is what your description would create a robot.

[MrForbes]

If you're going to decide something without using the rules, there's no way to know whether someone else will decide the same thing. The objective standard is the collection of rules, not "common sense".

That's true.

However, you have to start somewhere....not every term used in the rules is defined, and in fact we are encouraged: "When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule."

Engineering thinking, to me, is that two frames with drive motors and wheels and everything else (except electronics) constitutes two robots. Lawyer thinking is that since one of the robots does not have electronics at any given time, then there is only one legally defined robot.

I think the reasoning behind the decision is that they want us to make only one robot, although we are welcome to make different mechanisms to go on that robot to play the game in different ways.

I also think that the concept of a small robot with a bigger drive system and ball handing mechanism that can be put onto it quickly is excellent, and it would have been very neat to see this happen. But I also think the way to do it would be to have a small robot that had more added onto it, rather than having two different robots. As you say, the rules will probably be refined to make this more plain.

[GaryVoshol]

<devil's advocate>
//snip "looks like a robot" stuff//
</devil's advocate>
Jim, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the GDC can decide that this looks like 2 robots and therefore it is. What most are disputing is that the GDC accuses 1519 of lawyering, and then goes through extreme manipulations of the rules to prove their own point. If they had just said, "Nope. We never envisioned a team doing something like this, but now that it's done, we can't allow it because it is two robots. We admit that we didn't craft the rules carefully enough. If you had asked earlier, we would have made a rule to cover it. We're sorry, but you will have to decide between the two of your designs, and scrap the other."

[Woody1458]

My feeling in a nutshell

Does it break any rules - No (As far as I can tell they folllowed every rule)
Is it Creative - Yes (no doubt)
Did this team find a loophole - Yes (Deffinatly not intended, therefore a loophole)
Is this loophole an unfair advantage - No (Along with having twice the options, they have twice the robot to fix)
Did this team put less effort into their robot then an average team - No (Argueably more)
Should this robot be allowed - Yes

They found a creative, non abusive answer to GDC's problem and should be awarded for it not disregarded.

[Vikesrock]

This scenario is illegal because the two "mechanisms" together must make the weight limit--which is the limiting factor preventing teams from shipping 1000 robots and what made this such a design challenge for 1519. If your above scenario the sum of the masses of the two robots is well about 120lbs making it illegal. The two robots 1519 had weight 120lbs together.

I agree that squirrel's idea that we know what a robot looks like is flawed--such an approach encourages making the same first robot continuously rather than branching out and changing with time. I'm sure there is nothing innovative about every team building a 6wheel drive rectangular robot which is what your description would create a robot.

This is not correct according to my reading of the rules. Provided that you are reinspected after every time you make the modification only the weight of the parts you plan to use in the current configuration would count. For example when 1519 modified their robot by adding 30 lbs. of ballast did they weigh Fezzix + ballast + Speed Racer?? Of course not, they no longer planned on using Speed Racer so it was no longer weighed with the robot.

[Lil' Lavery]

The point of their statements about the bumpers was to say that bumpers must be attached at all times, but rather that there has to be a way for all the bumpers to be attached. Neither Fezzik nor Mach 6 could accept every bumper that 1519 sent to inspection at the same time. If you want to further discuss this rule, or <R09> (which I feel the intent is pretty clear on), with me, please do so via PM rather than murking up this thread.
Much applause to 1519 for their engineering feats.

[Kevin Sevcik]

That's true.

However, you have to start somewhere....not every term used in the rules is defined, and in fact we are encouraged: "When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule."

Engineering thinking, to me, is that two frames with drive motors and wheels and everything else (except electronics) constitutes two robots. Lawyer thinking is that since one of the robots does not have electronics at any given time, then there is only one legally defined robot.

I think the reasoning behind the decision is that they want us to make only one robot, although we are welcome to make different mechanisms to go on that robot to play the game in different ways.

I also think that the concept of a small robot with a bigger drive system and ball handing mechanism that can be put onto it quickly is excellent, and it would have been very neat to see this happen. But I also think the way to do it would be to have a small robot that had more added onto it, rather than having two different robots. As you say, the rules will probably be refined to make this more plain.
Jim,
You say the intent was for one robot that we put different manipulators on. Yet you still haven't defined what a robot is. That definition seems to imply a robot is defined by the drive train. Of course I can envision games where a modular drive train under a single manipulator would be beneficial. Kind of like this game. I mean, if that's the definition, then fine. But I could've sworn that the entire reason behind this year's extensive head ref training was complaints of too many "I calls'em like I sees'em" calls on the field. It seems a little silly to be falling back on that rhetoric for robot inspections just because the GDC doesn't have a better answer.

Jim, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the GDC can decide that this looks like 2 robots and therefore it is. What most are disputing is that the GDC accuses 1519 of lawyering, and then goes through extreme manipulations of the rules to prove their own point. If they had just said, "Nope. We never envisioned a team doing something like this, but now that it's done, we can't allow it because it is two robots. We admit that we didn't craft the rules carefully enough. If you had asked earlier, we would have made a rule to cover it. We're sorry, but you will have to decide between the two of your designs, and scrap the other."
Yes. I wouldn't mind the answer near so much if they simply admitted that this was outside the scope of the current rules, since it obviously is. I find it rather disappointing that they instead decided to fall back on flimsy reasoning and themselves stretching rules as far as possible to cover the situation.

[StevenB]

Disclaimer: I, like many members of Team #1519, come from an FLL background, where there is a very clear definition of the robot, and switching out large attachments is common.

Jim, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the GDC can decide that this looks like 2 robots and therefore it is.

I think some would argue that, at the least, the GDC needs to define what a robot is.


As to the R114 reference, I don't really see how Fezzik and Speed Racer aren't mechanisms. They both provide specific functionality. Is the GDC claiming that if you have a module that does more than one thing, that it's illegal? While I know previous years rules don't apply, I know I've seen modules more complicated than a single motor used before. 57's even done so. And again, they just refer back to mechanisms ON THE ROBOT without bothering to define what a robot is.

And finally, as to their reasoning with R12 and "basic ROBOT structure"... I think a casual reading of the example given gives the impression that the drive train plus manipulators solution was the solution of that particular team. I mean, it says right there that that was how they decided to do it.


I think that what may be a problem for the GDC, in this case, is that it is pretty difficult to create a clear-cut definition of a "robot" without being incredibly intricate or complicated. As we have seen many machines in competition, each robot holds its own unique, qualitative characteristics. Even though the GDC has not yet established a comprehensive definition of a "robot," it appears to me that currently, a robot must consist of any and all required components specified in the rulebook. As was stated before, a cardboard box with a robot controller, a flag holder, and a few other items could be considered a robot. In practice, however, "common sense" would dictate that such a thing really isn't a robot. Such a thing, however, is legal, although I severely doubt it would pass inspection in such a state.

Here's where I see the problem with the GDC's ruling. Suppose some team builds one drive base with two arm configurations - basically the example given in the rules. The team is not expected to put both configurations on the robot at once, or for that to even be possible (see <R12>) This would be legal, although the robot might look very different from round to round. To an observer, this might look like two robots.

Now suppose a team builds one arm and two drive bases, one a strong pusher and the other a mecanum drive. There is no one main frame that could be called "the robot". Does that make this two robots, or is each drive base simply a mechanism that provides specific functionality (locomotion, in this case)? Is the team swapping bases on their robot, or swapping their arm onto different robots? Without a definition of robot other than "anything that passes inspection", it's impossible to say.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I think we need to step back a little and not get so emotional about the GDC response. Take it for what it is on the surface. They are attempting to make a difficult ruling (I know it is difficult for me) and as they are the authors of the document in question they are trying to explain their decision based on what they thought they wrote. I think the implication is this... a robot is a structure that can stand on it's own and drive on it's own without the addition or moving of other parts. Anything that can be added to increase a robot's abilities are attachments. I think we can all see that an RC is not a robot, a drive base is not a robot, an electronics board is not a robot. However, a drive base with electronics and RC can be a robot. I also would not dwell on the lawyering statement. The GDC has asked us not to read into what is written. Take it for what it is, on the surface. There is no hidden meaning, no decipherable advantage or game hint. I believe the GDC is just reminding us to look at the rules for what they are.
I do want to point out that in my opinion, Team 1519 is trying to approach this matter in a very gracious and proffessional manner. I believe they are doing so not only for their own cause but for all of us, to allow some additional creativity. Sorry it didn't turn out for you guys, let us know if we can be of any help.

[Brandon Holley]

What annoys me most is this....


If speed racer was simply the drive train of fezzik, and you could remove fezzik when you wanted to to keep only speed racer as your robot, I feel this would be allowed...

Rule <R114> claims THE (implication, ONE) Robot must be presented with all Mechanisms and that Mechanisms may be removed or reconfigured between matches. A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT.

So if fezzik were simply an outer "mechanism" it would be allowed and we would see fezzik and speed racer competing....

If you made 8 1 foot sections of bumper you could cover the bumper requirements of both the large and small configurations.




The response to me sounded like they were saying you are trying to bend the rules and I think thats outrageous. I think you guys did a great job trying to be creative and its sad to see that because of some wording of rules this isn't allowed.

[ALIBI]

I am a convert and have changed my mind. There is no definition of ROBOT. There is a definition of MECHANISM. Drive base "A" is a MECHANISM and drive base "B" is a MECHANISM. What is a ROBOT if it is not a combination of fabricated COMPONENTS, MECHANISMS and COTS items <R10>? 1519 demonstrated that they could comply with <R11>. <R12> refers to ROBOT weight. The example illustrates one possible sollution to determine the total weight of all of a ROBOT's various possible playing configurations. 1519 demonstrated that they could comply with <R12>. They do have a slightly different approach than the example, however, the example is only an illustration of one way to approach <R12>. How in the world does 1519 violate <R114>? Each playing configuration was indeed a subset of all the COMPONENTS, MECHANISMS and COTS presented at inspection. It seems as though they took great pains to insure that they complied. If 1519 believed that <R08>, while I think this is a weak argument by the GDC, was the problem, I am certain that they could have come up with segmented bumpers for the larger drivetrain with 2/3rd's covered and made the smaller drivetrain a little larger and 100% covered. I have not done any lawyering of the rules to come up with this solution. 1519 worked within the rules as they were presented. Perhaps if they had asked questions earlier, rules would have been written to prevent them from doing exactly what the rules stated. What would be wrong with a team calling their robot Super Speedy when they did not have a manipulator attached and Super Hurdler when they did? Two names do not make two robots. My thanks go out to all who helped me come to this conclusion, there are just too many in this thread and others to quote.

EDIT: Another comment on bumpers, suppose a team has a speed bot that they cover 100% with bumpers. When they add their manipulator, they leave he front bumper off for clearance. The only solution is to never put the front bumper on the speed bot. Seems a little contrary to the intent of the bumpers.

[Racer26]

One interesting point I haven't seen brought up is that the rules state that ALL "PLAYING CONFIGURATIONS" as defined in the rules, must fall within the 120lb limit combined. 1519 did this.

The argument here appears to be whether Fezzik and Speed Racer are two ROBOTs or two MECHANISMs.

Sure, a team can build one drive base, and have two interchangeable manipulators, in fact, I would argue that this is the INTENT of the rule.

How is it any different for a team to build one manipulator with electronics attached, and a modular drivebase, allowing for a configuration change from perhaps a Track based drivetrain, to a swerve drivetrain, for example?

If those are no different, how is 1519s design of a singular ELECTRONICS board (which to me is the ROBOT, I'll explain this view in a second), with a multiplicity of MANIPULATORs and DRIVE BASEs as long as in ALL playing configurations, it meets the appropriate rules, and their COMBINED weight meets 120lbs.

My view that a ROBOT is constituted primarily by the RC, Radio, and Battery is this. Consider a human. We have a brain, and a body. We can lose many parts of our body (See: quadrapalegics (sp?)) and still function, but if we lose our BRAIN, we cease to exist, for all intents and purposes.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I think we need to step back a little and not get so emotional about the GDC response. Take it for what it is on the surface. They are attempting to make a difficult ruling (I know it is difficult for me) and as they are the authors of the document in question they are trying to explain their decision based on what they thought they wrote. I think the implication is this... a robot is a structure that can stand on it's own and drive on it's own without the addition or moving of other parts. Anything that can be added to increase a robot's abilities are attachments. I think we can all see that an RC is not a robot, a drive base is not a robot, an electronics board is not a robot. However, a drive base with electronics and RC can be a robot. I also would not dwell on the lawyering statement. The GDC has asked us not to read into what is written. Take it for what it is, on the surface. There is no hidden meaning, no decipherable advantage or game hint. I believe the GDC is just reminding us to look at the rules for what they are.
I do want to point out that in my opinion, Team 1519 is trying to approach this matter in a very gracious and proffessional manner. I believe they are doing so not only for their own cause but for all of us, to allow some additional creativity. Sorry it didn't turn out for you guys, let us know if we can be of any help.
Al,
I believe the frustration and annoyance with the GDC ruling is that it doesn't really clarify anything. The robot definition you present is clear and enforceable. From my point of view it's a little arbitrary, but I don't mean that as a strike against it, as the whole issue is kinda murky and a simple declaration of "This is a robot" would at least clear things up. Unfortunately, that definition appears exactly nowhere in the rule book or the Q&A. You suggest we shouldn't read anything into the rules, but you have just done so yourself to come up with that definition. The entire problem here is that we have no choice but to read into the rules and try to divine what the GDC's definition of a robot actually means. They've even added an entirely new term that they've failed to define, "basic robot structure". This only ever appears in the rules in a specific example applied to a specific team robot concept. Otherwise it's used as if we already know exactly what it means. The ROBOT term is similarly used. 1519 has rather effectively pointed out that there's no real guidance on what the heck a ROBOT consists of, and the GDC has effectively stuck their fingers in their ears.

[MrForbes]

1519 has rather effectively pointed out that there's no real guidance on what the heck a ROBOT consists of...

Which is a good thing, right? because we don't want them to tell us what a robot is, because doing so could stifle our creativity.

One thing is kind of obvious from the ruling, though....if you build two robots, you'll only be allowed to enter one of them into the competition.

Whatever it is that a robot might be in the eyes of the GDC, 1519 built two of them. When I look at the picture of Mach 6 sitting next to Fezzik, I can easily agree with them. When folks talk about what-ifs with different drive bases and mechanisms and whatnot, then we get into a gray area. 1519 did not do a what-if, they built two robots, and apparently they realize it, sadly a bit late.

The rules are vague about what constitutes a robot, but if you use your common sense judgement, do you see one or two robots?

http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/images/2008-Robot-at-unveiling-medium.jpg

[wilsonmw04]

The rules are vague about what constitutes a robot, but if you use your common sense judgement, do you see one or two robots?



I completely agree with you on this one. If i didn't know anything about the rules i would look at the picture and think, "that's two different robots."
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck: it's a duck.

[Brandon Holley]

The rules are vague about what constitutes a robot, but if you use your common sense judgement, do you see one or two robots?



While it is clearly obvious that there are 2 separate machines there, at a competition, only 1 of them will ever be operating at a time and combined they fit the requirements needed (minus the bumpers).

Not go get into teh what-if game, but what if speed racer in its down time was simply strapped to fezzik....so when presented it was one whole system basically speed racer is acting as a ballast and thats all, just added weight.

Speed racer has on its person the electronics battery and you name it. Now as per rule r114 they would be able to remove the system of fezzik and leave speed racer on the floor.

To me its the fact they are still able to fairly easily implement their design by doing some simple solutions and adhering to the rules. What they did could be done within the rules.

While I am still on the fence on this whole situation, I see both sides to this argument and you brought up a good point squirrel..

[MrForbes]

I agree that they would only have one robot on the field at a time, but unfortunately R09 allows a team to enter only one robot into the competition.

[Brandon Holley]

I agree that they would only have one robot on the field at a time, but unfortunately R09 allows a team to enter only one robot into the competition.

My counter argument would be that they are only putting a part of their robot on the field at a time, however I am not a lawyer so I am not going down that road... ;)

[Kevin Sevcik]

Which is a good thing, right? because we don't want them to tell us what a robot is, because doing so could stifle our creativity.

One thing is kind of obvious from the ruling, though....if you build two robots, you'll only be allowed to enter one of them into the competition.

Whatever it is that a robot might be in the eyes of the GDC, 1519 built two of them. When I look at the picture of Mach 6 sitting next to Fezzik, I can easily agree with them. When folks talk about what-ifs with different drive bases and mechanisms and whatnot, then we get into a gray area. 1519 did not do a what-if, they built two robots, and apparently they realize it, sadly a bit late.

The rules are vague about what constitutes a robot, but if you use your common sense judgement, do you see one or two robots?

Jim,
I say I can't answer your question without looking closer at the mechanisms. Would you call a 57 Chevy sans engine and transmission a car? Would you call a PC case without a motherboard or CPU a computer? Would you call this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Turk-engraving5.jpg
A intelligent chess playing robot?
What about if you then saw this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Tuerkischer_schachspieler_windisch4.jpg
If you're really trying to tell me that appearances are everything, then I have some Iron Pyrite to sell you at the bargain price of $500 per troy ounce.

[MrForbes]

Appearances are not everything, but they do count a lot. I called my 55 Chevy a car when I bought it, it had no engine or interior. I call some of my old computers without motherboards computers, but not all of them....computer inventory at my house is interesting! (last count was around 100) I have seen the chess player before, so I knew what was in the box. I don't buy gold chunks, so I would not buy pyrite chunks.

Sorry if I'm just trying to be reasonable here.....

[Racer26]

I don't know, but I'm still of the opinion that despite that the GDC says different that this is PRECISELY the type of design that rule (the multiple mechs as long as they stay within 120lbs rule) was intended to produce, and 1519 is one of the first teams that had the cojones to actually do it... That rule has been there for multiple years, and I have yet to see any team actually utilize it.

[MrForbes]

I don't know, but I'm still of the opinion that despite that the GDC says different that this is PRECISELY the type of design that rule (the multiple mechs as long as they stay within 120lbs rule) was intended to produce

Hmmmm....despite the fact that they say otherwise, you believe this is what they want? :) I won't go into that any further, but.....

Think about last year's game, the two main scoring opportunities were with an arm that hung tubes on, or with a ramp to park other robots on. That was a great opportunity to have two mechanisms that could be changed. Unbolt the arm, bolt on the ramp, you've completely changed your game plan, but still have the same robot under it all. 1519 has to replace the whole robot to change game plans.

[Alan Anderson]

...Unbolt the arm, bolt on the ramp, you've completely changed your game plan, but still have the same robot under it all. 1519 has to replace the whole robot to change game plans.

I still don't see anything in the rules to justify how you're using the word "robot". You obviously have your own idea of what a "robot" is, independent of what the rules say (or fail to say).

Would you accept a team that designed a robot with a replaceable drivebase? Unbolt the tank drive module and bolt on the Mecanum drive module. Your comment about "same robot under it all" would seem to reject this as a valid option, but there's nothing in the rules making it illegal so far as I can tell.

[Ken Streeter]

One thing is kind of obvious from the ruling, though....if you build two robots, you'll only be allowed to enter one of them into the competition. That a team is only allowed to enter one robot is absolutely clear. However, whenever I read Rule R09 in the past, I really didn't think it was intended to avoid the modular (dual-configuration) robot design we built. My perspective on the intent of Rule R09 was that if a team wants to enter two different robots (i.e. two different constructions that separately meet the size, weight, and other rule constraints) that team needs to enter the tournament twice as two different teams (i.e. pay two registration fees.) In other words, it's not like the US Ski Team sending athletes to the Olympics where multiple skiers enter and compete at the same time, all as part of one team.

Whatever it is that a robot might be in the eyes of the GDC, 1519 built two of them. When I look at the picture of Mach 6 sitting next to Fezzik, I can easily agree with them. ... they (1519) built two robots, and apparently they realize it, sadly a bit late.Jim, I must confess that I'm a bit puzzled by the last part of the above statement, "apparently they realize it." Is the implication that we agree with the GDC's ruling?

Just for the record, I do fully understand that the GDC sees our solution as being two robots, rather than one. I also think I understand how they can reasonably arrive at that perspective apart from the rules -- just look at the photo -- it sure looks like two robots!

However, I still believe that we have built a valid dual-configuration robot, that does indeed look like two robots. Much of the reason that it looks like two robots is that the some of the fundamental requirements of an effective hurdling capability (strong, stable, and heavy to lift a 7-pound, 40-inch ball) and an effective lap-running capability (small and light) are radically opposed to one another. I do not agree with the GDC ruling on the matter, but in the spirit of gracious professionalism and the fact that the GDC are the official rule-interpreters, we're not going to further contest their decision. (It doesn't matter for us at this point anyway, as our FRC 2008 season is completed, since we've attended the one and only official FRC tournament we are registered for this year.)

That said, I'm still prickling at the last paragraph of the official GDC response, as we were by no means attempting to cheat by lawyering interpretations or finding a loophole. Rather, we were trying to come up with an approach to constructing a design that allowed us to have the choice of either effective hurdling or effective lap-running on a match-by-match basis. (We would have preferred to have one configuration that could do both, but one of the essential aspects of the effective lap-running of the Speed Racer is that it be very narrow in order to drive through gaps that a full-size robot couldn't dream of negotiating.)

My silence on the matter since the GDC ruling is not because I agree with their perspective on our "lawyering interpretations" but because I thought it best to be slow to speak when I might be tempted to become angry by what appeared to be an implied accusation of intentional cheating.

We were by no means trying to cheat the system and field "two robots" as one robot. We made major tradeoffs in the last week in order to have the dual-configuration robot make weight. In the last weekend we needed to re-design the frame of Speed Racer to accommodate design changes in the electronics board as well as further reduce weight involving taking out over a quarter of the frame members. (Yes, the frame of Speed Racer was completely taken apart and rebuilt the weekend prior to ship.) Nearly every component on the electronics board was placed in a position that was less desirable for one of the configurations because of requirements for the other configuration. Our bumpers were built and re-built numerous times in order to have the shared bumper between configurations as well as make the 15.0 pound aggregate bumper weight limit. Our software and operator interface required compromises in order to support both configurations that would not have been required for either configuration for two separate robots. In short, there was hardly a single part of either robot configuration that was not in some way affected by the dual-configuration approach.

We worked very hard to make one robot which could fulfill two wildly different sets of operational requirements and satisfy the rules. The GDC response really seems to imply that we just tried to utilize a loophole to easily field two robots as one robot and that we completely lack common sense. To me, that implication is what hurts more than their decision to disallow our design. By no means were we trying to "build and bring two robots that fit the criteria of one robot" -- we really were trying to build and bring one robot that could be deployed in radically different configurations. I think we succeeded in satisfying the rules; the GDC says we didn't and implies (via the last paragraph of their response) that we had mal-intent in trying to do so.

Nonetheless, we respect their decision and will abide by it, even if we don't agree with their decision or the tone of their response.

[Brandon Holley]

Ken,

Like I said in my earlier post, I do believe that you guys had absolutely no intention of "lawyering" the rules at all.

Make sure your team is proud of what they did, it sure is an accomplishment regardless of what happened competition wise.

Stand tall guys, we'll be expecting both speed racer and fezzik at the beantown blitz this year! ;) (and you can bet your bottom dollar we'll let you compete)

[MrForbes]

I still don't see anything in the rules to justify how you're using the word "robot". You obviously have your own idea of what a "robot" is, independent of what the rules say (or fail to say).

Yes, I do have my own idea of what a robot is. I expect that you do too. And the rules don't say whether or not my idea is right or wrong, or whether or not your idea is right or wrong. I think that's the point. You have to actually think about what a robot is, and come to some reasonable conclusion. Unfortuntely Ken came to a different conclusion than the GDC did.

And Ken, I understand that you don't agree with the ruling, but I also get the idea that you can see what they mean about you having two robots.

I also don't think the GDC was implying mal-intent or complete lack of common sense on your part, but I can see why you think so. You had a really neat idea, but it turns out that implementing it as you did gives the appearance of trying to circumvent the rules. As I mentioned before, if you had somehow incorporated the small drive base into the big robot, it would most likely have been acceptable.

[jgannon]

1519 has to replace the whole robot
I've been going back and forth on this a whole bunch, but I think we've finally got this pinned down. ROBOT is not clearly defined in the manual. Some folks take the "looks like a duck" approach, others take the FLL (robot = brain) approach. This is the whole problem that we're having. Since ROBOT is ill-defined, and since a reasonable person could consider the RC and its related electronics to be a robot, 1519 has satisfied the rules as written in the current revision of the manual.

This (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8455) Q&A response seems to me to be a sort of concession from the GDC that even if a team is breaking their ideas for the spirit of the game, it's really the letter of the rules that counts. Regardless of what we (the community and the GDC) think a ROBOT ought to be, the manual tells us that 1519 could reasonably be considered to have showed up with one ROBOT.

[StevenB]

Just for the record, I do fully understand that the GDC sees our solution as being two robots, rather than one. I also think I understand how they can reasonably arrive at that perspective apart from the rules -- just look at the photo -- it sure looks like two robots!
I wasn't at the unveiling, but I'm pretty sure the picture is of two robots. They each have their own electrical and control system, and can move independently. Thus, I understand why bringing both to inspection would get the immediate reaction of "this is two robots". Why should the removal of one robot's electronics make two robots into one?

[Alan Anderson]

Yes, I do have my own idea of what a robot is. I expect that you do too. And the rules don't say whether or not my idea is right or wrong, or whether or not your idea is right or wrong. I think that's the point.

(I do wish you'd answer the question about modular drivebases. It would give a lot more insight into how you're coming to the conclusion you do.)

I indeed have an idea of what a robot is, in the context of this year's FRC game. It's just that my idea of what makes something a robot in that context is based on the rules of this year's FRC game. Thus the rules do say whether my idea is right or wrong.

And I think that is the point. There is certainly room for disagreement outside the rules, but it is clear to me (and to many others, obviously) that 1519's extreme dual configuration is not ruled out.

Unfortunately for 1519, their design has been declared illegal by fiat, outside the rules. The GDC's only straightforward references to the rules look like circular logic to me, and the other references are vague at best, but the end result is unavoidable. Apparently the GDC considers a robot to consist of a drivebase plus other mechanisms. Unless they change their mind, I expect something to that effect to appear in the manual for next year's game.

[Bochek]

just a thought here. Not sure if it has been covered by anyone else, or have i re-read through all the rules that would cover this but....

If your starting configuration had the smaller robot sitting ontop of the larger one, and somehow you drove it off the larger one. and left it sitting in the home zone. Now you have one robot (starting configuration)

When you wanted to use the larger bot, you just would not place the smaller one on it, you just removed a mechanism right?

Just a thought.

- Bochek

[Racer26]

just a thought here. Not sure if it has been covered by anyone else, or have i re-read through all the rules that would cover this but....

If your starting configuration had the smaller robot sitting ontop of the larger one, and somehow you drove it off the larger one. and left it sitting in the home zone. Now you have one robot (starting configuration)

When you wanted to use the larger bot, you just would not place the smaller one on it, you just removed a mechanism right?

Just a thought.

- Bochek

This would break one of the other rules about littering the field/detaching parts of your robot mid-match.

[StevenB]

If your starting configuration had the smaller robot sitting ontop of the larger one, and somehow you drove it off the larger one. and left it sitting in the home zone. Now you have one robot (starting configuration)

When you wanted to use the larger bot, you just would not place the smaller one on it, you just removed a mechanism right?
- Bochek
This would be illegal, per <G44>:
<G44> Detaching MECHANISMS - ROBOTS may not intentionally detach parts or leave multiple mechanisms on the TRACK.


For those saying bolting Speed Racer onto Fezzik would make it legal, why? <R12> explicitly states:
...each manipulator being a quick attach / detach device such that either one or the other (but not both) may be part of the ROBOT at the beginning of a MATCH.

[MrForbes]

(I do wish you'd answer the question about modular drivebases. It would give a lot more insight into how you're coming to the conclusion you do.)

See my post #72 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=712413&postcount=72) in this thread. I copped out at that time. Is another robot just a "modular drivebase"? Good question! I haven't seen the hypothetical "modular drivebases" you're referring to, so I have no way of knowing.

Apparently the GDC considers a robot to consist of a drivebase plus other mechanisms.

Yes, that seems to be what they meant when they defined a FIRST robot as a remotely operated vehicle designed to perform specific tasks, in 8.1.1.

[GaryVoshol]

just a thought here. Not sure if it has been covered by anyone else, or have i re-read through all the rules that would cover this but....

If your starting configuration had the smaller robot sitting ontop of the larger one, and somehow you drove it off the larger one. and left it sitting in the home zone. Now you have one robot (starting configuration)

When you wanted to use the larger bot, you just would not place the smaller one on it, you just removed a mechanism right?

Just a thought.

- Bochek
I'm not sure of what you're suggesting, but you can't have detachable pieces. What you put on the field must stay together as one body.

[Vikesrock]

Yes, I do have my own idea of what a robot is. I expect that you do too. And the rules don't say whether or not my idea is right or wrong, or whether or not your idea is right or wrong. I think that's the point. You have to actually think about what a robot is, and come to some reasonable conclusion. Unfortuntely Ken came to a different conclusion than the GDC did.

And Ken, I understand that you don't agree with the ruling, but I also get the idea that you can see what they mean about you having two robots.

I also don't think the GDC was implying mal-intent or complete lack of common sense on your part, but I can see why you think so. You had a really neat idea, but it turns out that implementing it as you did gives the appearance of trying to circumvent the rules. As I mentioned before, if you had somehow incorporated the small drive base into the big robot, it would most likely have been acceptable.

EDIT: After reading Al's post then mine again I have decided to replace it with a more succinct GP version.

If the rules don't clearly say who is right and wrong, and therefore whether the design is legal or not, don't we have to give the team the benefit of the doubt and allow them to compete?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
I have to step in here and state that this discussion is pushing the envelope a little. If you were to look at some of the dialogue from an outsider's perspective, this appears to be transcending GP. From my standpoint I am getting a little embarrassed by the repsonses. I would have never entered into this discussion had I thought it would come to this. I am all for having a lively discussion with GP in mind.

[Francis-134]

As an aside, there was a team last year at the Boston Regional that had no drivetrain at all. During autonomous, the team simply released a servo and let thier ramps fall to the ground. They would then sit there for the remainder of the match patiently waiting for other teams to drive up onto them (their ramp system was completely passive). This robot passed inspection.

[Richard Wallace]

... Apparently the GDC considers a robot to consist of a drivebase plus other mechanisms. Unless they change their mind, I expect something to that effect to appear in the manual for next year's game.... Yes, that seems to be what they meant when they defined a FIRST robot as a remotely operated vehicle designed to perform specific tasks, in 8.1.1.Key words that have a particular meaning within the context of the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition are defined in sections 6, 7.2 and 8.2, and indicated in ALL CAPITAL letters throughout this text. ...ROBOT: Anything that has passed ROBOT inspection that a TEAM places on the TRACK prior to the start of a MATCH.As squirrel correctly points out, Section 8.1.1 says that a FIRST robot [note: lower case] is a remotely operated vehicle designed to perform specific tasks. However, per the convention provided in Section 8.1.4, that statement is not a definition. A FIRST ROBOT [note: capitalized] is defined in Section 7.2. The distinction is, of course, lawyerish.

Done correctly, lawyering can be gracious and professional. At its best the legal profession is about gracious resolution of disputes. At its worst, it encourages disputes by rewarding people who win them.

Of course it is equally true that engineering can be practiced ungraciously and unprofessionally. I'm disappointed when someone uses either 'engineer' or 'lawyer' as a perjorative label.

[Racer26]

As an aside, there was a team last year at the Boston Regional that had no drivetrain at all. During autonomous, the team simply released a servo and let thier ramps fall to the ground. They would then sit there for the remainder of the match patiently waiting for other teams to drive up onto them (their ramp system was completely passive). This robot passed inspection.

Based on this precedent, I think we can safely assume that a DRIVEBASE does not constitute a ROBOT according to FIRST. Since this is the case, it only serves to further the view that brain = ROBOT.

If a DRIVEBASE can't be considered a ROBOT (since a ROBOT without a DRIVEBASE competed in the past [yes I know, past years rules are not this years rules, but the specific rules in question have not changed]), then what is left to consider as a ROBOT, but the brains, aka the RC, battery, Victors, etc?

[Elgin Clock]

A personal statement to Team 1519!!! Please read!!

While I need to review this thread further before I comment on the ruling, (and because most things I've seen here cover what I would say from what I have read) I want to just state one thing to your team!

If you are going to off-seasons which aren't officially FIRST sanctioned and thus more loosely rule based sometimes, then get approval to have both bots (or one bot as is being debated) as you imagined it from week 1 of build being to be allowed to play there at least!

I'd love to see both & or one in competition since I missed BAE this year!

Bottom line is, I'm sure most off season events will not have a problem with you bringing your configuration as you envisioned, since off-season's don't lawyer the rules as much as FIRST (claim they don't want to) but has in this case!

Good luck the remainder of the year, and I hope to see you at an off-season in New England with both Fezzik & Speed Racer!

Also, if you are going to Atlanta I would like to see both configurations shipped there to allow the general FIRST public to see what was disallowed for future reference.


A personal statement to everyone else aside from Team 1519!!! Please read!!

If you believe that Team 1519 are truly innovative, and thought outside the box with this, and you see them at an event, please offer some words of congratulations & praise in their engineering attempts, even if you don't agree that they followed the rules as lawyered.

I know if I see 1519 at an event this year, I will be doing that very thing.

I personally praise their creativity, innovation, and outside the box thinking!

I thought that's what a majority of the engineering awards were for in this competition, and am saddened to see them being penalized for attempting to break the mold, step it up a bit and push the engineering limits to extremes!

</$0.02>

[Dan Petrovic]

A personal statement to Team 1519!!! Please read!!

While I need to review this thread further before I comment on the ruling, (and because most things I've seen here cover what I would say from what I have read) I want to just state one thing to your team!

If you are going to off-seasons which aren't officially FIRST sanctioned and thus more loosely rule based sometimes, then get approval to have both bots (or one bot as is being debated) as you imagined it from week 1 of build being to be allowed to play there at least!

I'd love to see both & or one in competition since I missed BAE this year!

Bottom line is, I'm sure most off season events will not have a problem with you bringing your configuration as you envisioned, since off-season's don't lawyer the rules as much as FIRST (claim they don't want to) but has in this case!

Good luck the remainder of the year, and I hope to see you at an off-season in New England with both Fezzik & Speed Racer!

Also, if you are going to Atlanta I would like to see both configurations shipped there to allow the general FIRST public to see what was disallowed for future reference.



Many off-season events would probably just let them compete with both as separate robots.

[LizzieP]

Also, if you are going to Atlanta I would like to see both configurations shipped there to allow the general FIRST public to see what was disallowed for future reference.


Unfortunately, the official season is over for us. We will, however, be attending several off-season tournaments.

While it would be very fun to strategize with both Fezzik and Mach 6 as one robot, 1519 plans to enter as two (or maybe three-we have two speed racers) completely different teams in order to give more students the chance to drive and be part of the pit crew etc.

[Blue_Mist]

My personal opinion is one robot, two configurations. Only one robot will be on the field at any time, they pass the weight requirements, and they are only using one set of RC Chip/Radio for either version of the robot. Also, this is definitely outside of the box/diagonal thinking. I congratulate 1519 for their courage in trying something that is certainly different. Just adding my voice to the general clamor.

[Leav]

I agree with Elgin, it is a real shame to see a team penalized for innovation - I thought that was corner stone of FIRST!

1519 - Congratulation on breaking out of the box: I think that in this respect at least FIRST has succeeded in preparing you for real life. I'd say most engineers I know are afraid of working out the box, and they tend to make life difficult for those with a more innovative mind.

Regarding the ruling: I always thought that the rule could/should be seen as "anything that will ever be on the field has to fit inside the measurement box, and when measuring, everything inside should conform to the rules (e.g. only 4 cims)."

I think that is a good definition since this would allow more flexibility and innovation without giving an unfair advantage to veteran/power teams.

-Leav

[Kendal Reed]

I have read this entire thread very thoroughly, and I feel forced to conclude that the GDC has failed to define a robot sufficiently to preclude the argument that 1519's complete electronics board and electrical system is their robot and "Fezzik" and "Speed Racer" are both interchangeable MECHANISMs, making this approach entirely within the rules. The example of the robot from 2007 which had ramps and no drive system and passed inspection reinforces this argument in that the other possible "implied definition" of a robot was an electrical system and a drive base, and this possibility is clearly refuted by the existence of an approved robot without any drive system at all.

1519's approach is innovative and does not violate any explicit rules as far as I have been able to tell (Yes, I realize after seven pages of debate that probably doesn't mean squat, and I also recall seeing an objection based on the inability of either configuration to accept all of the prepared bumpers which, while neither something I can find in the rules nor something the GDC used to justify their official decision, might legitimately disqualify them), and I commend them on that.

I also believe that while the GDC obviously has the power to say "no, that's two robots," they should have done so in a manner that clearly defined a "basic robot structure" for future reference, and should not have included the last paragraph denouncing 1519 for "lawyering" and finding/creating "loopholes" in a rule through which their approach makes it clear you could drive a truck (or, perhaps more appropriately, two complete drive trains).

[SU 39]

I wonder if anyone has asked GDC on the Q&A what exactly constitutes a robot?

[Dan Petrovic]

I wonder if anyone has asked GDC on the Q&A what exactly constitutes a robot?

It's in the rules. It has to pass inspection. However, nowhere in the rule book does it define what a ROBOT is so that the inspectors can accurately say that something is a ROBOT and not a MECHANISM.

It has to be a ROBOT to pass inspection (and there can be only one!), but to be a ROBOT it has to pass inspection.

...interesting.

[EricH]

It has to be a ROBOT to pass inspection (and there can be only one!), but to be a ROBOT it has to pass inspection.

...interesting.
Which is exactly why we are having this debate.

In past years, ROBOT was pretty much defined as anything connected to the RC (in case of breaking, for points determination). This year? Not that specific.

[Mike Harrison]

All discussion aside, I think it's totally awesome that they managed to make TWO functioning robots make weight, when some teams find that they have one robot that weighs as much as two FIRST robots nearing the end of build season. Also I think it's just crazy that they came up with this idea and ran with it, never would this have crossed my mind.

Kudos to 1519!

[EricH]

I took a good, close look at the GDC's response. I examined every rule referenced. The only rule that might be broken, as the rules are written, is the definition of Robot, which is ambiguous at best when examined.

In my opinion, 1519 built ONE robot with TWO configurations. (One was a drivebase, the other was a drivebase with an arm.)

I'm pretty sure that "ROBOT" will be clearly defined next year. Otherwise, the first question the Q&A gets should be, "Please clarify the definition of Robot, as it is currently circular."

[Paul Copioli]

All,

I have read most of the posts and, although the response from GDC was poor, the basic robot structure item is really what gets me.

I am in the robot industry (and that may be the reason for my bias), but a pile of electronics is never, ever considered a basic robot structure. Would the wires and furnace and pipes of a house be considered the basic building structure? No way.

I do not think 1519 lawyered the rules, but the flaw in the logic was assuming the electronics are the basic robot structure.

Maybe the simple test in the future should be: the basic robot structure should be considered a collection of parts / assemblies that can move under power in at least one degree of freedom.

When I first saw the post, I thought "there is no way that can be considered one robot." The intent was clear to me, but I have been wrong before (see blocking in hybrid thread).

[Daniel_LaFleur]

All,

I have read most of the posts and, although the response from GDC was poor, the basic robot structure item is really what gets me.

I am in the robot industry (and that may be the reason for my bias), but a pile of electronics is never, ever considered a basic robot structure. Would the wires and furnace and pipes of a house be considered the basic building structure? No way.

I do not think 1519 lawyered the rules, but the flaw in the logic was assuming the electronics are the basic robot structure.

Maybe the simple test in the future should be: the basic robot structure should be considered a collection of parts / assemblies that can move under power in at least one degree of freedom.

When I first saw the post, I thought "there is no way that can be considered one robot." The intent was clear to me, but I have been wrong before (see blocking in hybrid thread).

The problem is that "robot" and "Basic robot structure" were never defined. You are defining it by your own Paradigms. Being in the robotics industry only reinforces your Paradigm and makes it more difficult to see the other argument in a fair and unbiased light.

1519 should be praised for "trying to break the mold" instead of punished. Under the current rules 1519 did no wrong, instead they tried something innovative, and for that they were told that they could not compete with one of their configurations.

It's the same as if the GDC stated "oh, we didn't mean for robots to shoot the ball ... thats not hurdling and is illegal". They could say this because they've never defined if a robot can / cannot be touching the ball when hurdling. It's our interpretation of the rules (through our Paradigms) that tells us that shooting is within the rules.

JM(NS)HO

[Ty Tremblay]

I believe the problem comes down to this:

A team's INTERPRETATION of the rules versus the GDC's INTENTION of the rules.

This "intention" word seems to have shown up quite frequently in the Q&A. The GDC seems to have developed a vision of how they want this game to be played. And they seem to be allowing this vision to affect their rulings in the Q&A.

There appear to be only two ways to remedy this:

1) The GDC needs to put their "intentions" in the 2009 rule book.

2) The GDC needs to refrain from ruling based upon their "intentions" and rule purely by the rules as they are written.

[Francis-134]

So as a bit of history:

In 2002 (so I've been told) team 190 had what they called the "lunchbox". Basicaly, the entire electronics board and the rotating light (good old rotating light :) ) was removable and could be carried around and even placed on the field. The box was completely covered by lexan and had velcro on the bottom of it to aid in sticking it to the floor. In several matches where the robot was not functional, they would remove the lunchbox and stick it in a corner of the field in the endzone. Once the match began (no autonomous remember), they would hit the E-Stop button, causing the rotating light to stop spinning.

While this was only done in a few matches, it acutally made them win a few! In one instance, the opposing alliance wanted to maximze their ranking points and made the match as close as possible. Well, they forgot to count the little lunchbox sitting in the endzone in the corner and the bonus it got for being there at the end of the match.

Now obviously, this was done during a very different time in FIRST's history. The rule at that period in time read that in any single configuration, the robot must be able to pass inspection. Similarly, 2002 was a pretty crazy year for rules in FIRST (tape measures, rovers, file card drives etc.). Personaly, I would like to return to this period in FIRST because I like to see innovative solutions to complex problems.

In a game where the best strategy is to constantly turn left and throw a ball over a bar, something different is always appreciated.

[Racer26]

I agree with icdumbpeeps305, the GDC has been using the buzzword of 'intent' far too often this year. They want us to be creative, and yet, when we become creative with the interpretation (note: creative interpretation != bending the rules), they accuse us of "lawyering" the rules.

The GDC should know best of all of us (note: I've only been involved since 2003) that FIRST isn't about the game. Its not about how they intended to see the game played. Its about how teams can design and implement radical solutions to the daunting tasks laid out by the GDC.

I say, LET 1519 PLAY! I would be happy to lose a match to such a well designed MULTI-MECHANISM ROBOT. Sadly, its already too late, according to TIMS, BAE was their only FIRST sanctioned event this year. At least they've earned themselves notoriety as one of few teams who've instigated rule changes.

[Danielle H]

I'm sorry that I haven't had time to go through all 8 pages, and so I don't know if this has been said, and I'm sorry if it has, but I read the GDC's response, and frankly, it seems like they talked themselves in a circle.

None of the rules they referenced have to do with specifically defining the basic components of a ROBOT, which would be vital in this case. If a ROBOT was defined as merely a drivetrain and some electronics, then it looks like they have two robots, because Fezzik and Speed Racer have different structures used for drive trains, even if they have the same electronics. But, if a ROBOT is defined as having 1 RC, etc, then they fit the rules as their electronics were being transferred.

And honestly, I was a little bit appalled at the last statement in the GDC's response, as it seemed to be very insulting and disrespectful of the team. By reading most of the first page of this thread, and skimming through subsequent responses from members of the 'offending' team, I see clearly that they were not looking for loopholes. It was merely their interpretation of the rules. They were not necessarily 'splitting hairs' or 'lawyering,' and to say so is purely judgmental and not constructive whatsoever.

Needless to say, I think the entire decision should have hinged on the basic definition of a robot, which is NOT CLEAR this year, no matter how clear the GDC thinks it is.

EDIT: My last statement sounded harsh, so let me justify it... what I mean to say is, when the GDC comes up with something and they write it down, naturally their rules are going to make sense and sound clear to them because they're the ones that wrote it; they know what they meant when they wrote it. But we, as outsiders to the process, have nothing more to go on than the written rules and our interpretation of said rules. The GDC might think the definition of a ROBOT is clear, but, obviously from reading some of these posts, it isn't as clear as they might think, and a more specific definition should be taken into heavy consideration for subsequent years.

[Joachim]

I suggest the game development folks get someone like a technical documentation writer, a physics or math text editor, or a contract lawyer on the rules final editing team. Careful review of the rules by someone with the right skills could cut down on rulings and Q&A answers, like the one here, that seem to say "do what we meant, not what we said." The same step would benefit FTC and FLL too.

And in cases where teams find a way, under an un-strained reading of the rules, to do something different than what was intended, it would be preferable to acknowledge the gap between the rules and the intent, and fill the gap, rather than to support the intended meaning by using strained interpretations as if they were plain.

[Chris Fultz]

I have never seen a FIRST robot without wheels, treads or another method of moving the robot base.

There actually was such a robot at the Western Michigan Regional, 2006 I think.

[Vikesrock]

There actually was such a robot at the Western Michigan Regional, 2006 I think.

Exactly, apparently there was a ramp only at some regional last year as well. But I didn't know about them and I hadn't seen them, so my perception of what an FRC robot is would require it to have a means of moving the base.

This proves that our perceptions are not a good basis for decisions that should be clearly spelled out by the rules.

[EricH]

Exactly, apparently there was a ramp only at some regional last year as well. But I didn't know about them and I hadn't seen them, so my perception of what an FRC robot is would require it to have a means of moving the base.

This proves that our perceptions are not a good basis for decisions that should be clearly spelled out by the rules.That would be 702, L.A. 2007.

I think this thread is getting off-topic, and the issue is resolved. Admittedly, not necessarily resolved satisfactorily, but with the team only having one event, it's in the past.

[Elgin Clock]

/wayyyy off topic.


Since the GDC didn't specify what a "ROBOT" was too clearly this year unlike previous years, let's go to another source.

According to Wikipedia, we technically only kinda/sorta build ROBOTS...

We build Telerobots apparently sometimes as well.


a remotely operated vehicle is sometimes considered a robot[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot#_note-7) (or telerobot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telerobotics)).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot


Interesting.
That footnote 8 source btw... NASA.
Yay for clarification! (Or should I say Yay for even more confusion?) :yikes:

[Chrisms]

I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.

[Bongle]

I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.
You say that swapping different arms (presumably with different motors and sensors) is fine.

(1)What about an arm with a substantial frame at the bottom of it?
(2)What about an arm with a substantial frame and drive motors (but no wheels) at the bottom of it?
(3)What about an arm with half a drive system at the bottom of it?
(4)What about an arm with the whole drive system at the bottom of it?

You'd probably not allow (3) or (4) judging by your post, but the problem is that the actual rules give no guidance on where this line is drawn. Where does an 'interchangeable arm' stop and a 'robot' begin? In order for there to be consistency, there needs to be a consistent answer to this question, which there isn't. It comes down to the thoughts of the person deciding. Most people in the thread would allow all four options above, some wouldn't allow (4), and some wouldn't allow (3) or (4). The GDC response doesn't help to determine where that dividing line between interchangeable mechanism and robot is, though I imagine the rulebook will next year. By a strict reading of this year's rules, it appears that all four are allowed.

[Craig Roys]

There actually was such a robot at the Western Michigan Regional, 2006 I think.

It was 1718 at GLR in 2006 (our rookie year). We began with tank treads, but had many issues and switched over to wheels during the competition. During the process we had a match and our robot had no wheels. We figured we could at least run our auton to try and roll a few poofballs in for some points and then have our alliance push us into the back zone as the "back-bot". We asked if we could field the robot without wheels and the refs said yes. I'm not sure which side of the debate this falls on, but thought I would clarify on the "robot that can't move" issue.

[Racer26]

I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.

What about the third option, an electronics board with attached 'basic framework', and modular drives AS WELL AS modular arms. This is effectively what 1519 built.

The fact that they choose to change them simultaneously is irrelevant

[Chrisms]

What about the third option, an electronics board with attached 'basic framework', and modular drives AS WELL AS modular arms. This is effectively what 1519 built.

The fact that they choose to change them simultaneously is irrelevant

what it looks like to me, and i'm sure to the inspectors who have 40+ teams to deal with in a very short period of time. is that there are two, independent bodies. Thats probably the only reason it was not allowed.


MORT's electrical system this years drops out, and has anderson connectors on all the wires leading to off the board so that we can remove it to keep the metal shavings out. If we had a second robot that our electronics popped into, it would be a second robot, just with a hole in the bottom for the board to screw into.

the fact that they have two independently standing + operating superstructures is what didn't allow it. I think everyone is missing the fact that both of these robots are robots in their own respect. The only difference is one of them doesn't have an RC hooked up to it. Besides that, they are fully functional alone. And thus, independent of each other.

A arm alone, is not a robot, it's an arm(in this competition, since an arm alone wouldn't really function for points). A gearbox with a wheel, is just a gearbox with a wheel, it isn't a robot. thats how a modular robot would have to be made for it to instantly be seen as "one robot"

thats my take, and i think how the people who made the call saw it. I still think it's amazing they made weight and such... with that in mind, did both fit in the starting config? I don't know if that was discussed.

[Racer26]

what it looks like to me, and i'm sure to the inspectors who have 40+ teams to deal with in a very short period of time. is that there are two, independent bodies. Thats probably the only reason it was not allowed.


MORT's electrical system this years drops out, and has anderson connectors on all the wires leading to off the board so that we can remove it to keep the metal shavings out. If we had a second robot that our electronics popped into, it would be a second robot, just with a hole in the bottom for the board to screw into.

the fact that they have two independently standing + operating superstructures is what didn't allow it. I think everyone is missing the fact that both of these robots are robots in their own respect. The only difference is one of them doesn't have an RC hooked up to it. Besides that, they are fully functional alone. And thus, independent of each other.

A arm alone, is not a robot, it's an arm(in this competition, since an arm alone wouldn't really function for points). A gearbox with a wheel, is just a gearbox with a wheel, it isn't a robot. thats how a modular robot would have to be made for it to instantly be seen as "one robot"

thats my take, and i think how the people who made the call saw it. I still think it's amazing they made weight and such... with that in mind, did both fit in the starting config? I don't know if that was discussed.

But isn't a frame with motors attached just a frame with motors attached until you add in the ROBOT controller, to make it a ROBOT? The superstructures can't operate without their brain, and since theres only one permissible ROBOT controller for each team (the 2008 one issued in this years KOP), theres only one ROBOT.

[Alan Anderson]

I think everyone is missing the fact that both of these robots are robots in their own respect.

The point of contention is whether or not the two assemblies, taken together, violate any of the rules that apply to a ROBOT. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that they do not. Together, they follow the letter of the rules.

There's only one problem: the manual does not explicitly define what a ROBOT is. The Game Design Committee agrees with your take, saying that 1519 built two robots. I'm still not convinced they built two ROBOTs, but the GDC is backing the inspectors who decided that's what they did.

[Danielle H]

The point of contention is whether or not the two assemblies, taken together, violate any of the rules that apply to a ROBOT. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that they do not. Together, they follow the letter of the rules.

There's only one problem: the manual does not explicitly define what a ROBOT is. The Game Design Committee agrees with your take, saying that 1519 built two robots. I'm still not convinced they built two ROBOTs, but the GDC is backing the inspectors who decided that's what they did.

The GDC is attempting to cover their tracks, but with circular reasoning, which was actually susprising to me. Of all people, I figured the GDC could find an argument that was clear, concise, and actually CLARIFIED the rules that were used in their defense.

Their response was none of these.

They quoted rules that were very vague in themselves, and then did exactly what they accused 1519 of doing: they lawyered interpretations. In fact, they lawyered their entire response. The concept of using vague rules that you can manipulate in interpretation in attempts to back up your completely bogus point (which, that's just my opinion.. it's one robot) is exactly what the GDC did, and exactly what they were asking 1519 what to do.

Coming from the people that wrote the rules and designed the game, I figured the response would at least give people some piece of mind.. but, judging from the 6 pages of discussion that followed the posting of response, it's easy to see that no one's really satisfied.

If nothing else, I hope that the GDC takes this as a lesson to more clearly define things in the future.

((I quoted you because I agreed that I'm not convinced they built two and that they didn't clearly define ROBOT.))

[dr1008]

NOTE -- I originally hadn't intended to ask this question of the ChiefDelphi community prior to receiving an answer to our pending Q&A from the FIRST Game Design Committee, but so many people have asked about what happened to our dual-configuration robot in the four days since the start of our week 1 regional that I am having difficulty justifying the continued delay to reply to folks while waiting for the official Q&A response...

This year our team employed a strategy that piqued our curiousity in past years every time we saw the "different configurations of the ROBOT" phrase in the weight rule (<R12> this year) -- we built a robot with two radically different configurations.

Our first robot configuration (which we call "Fezzik") is a standard, but minimal, drive base with an arm; the second configuration ("Speed Racer / Mach 6") is a very small, light, lap-runner with a cool autonomous mode (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65193&highlight=1519). We worked hard to minimize weight on each configuration in order to have the total for both meet the 120 pound maximum weight limit. We designed a modular electronics board which would fit in the available space for each drivetrain, as well as have the appropriate circuit breakers and speed controllers. We also made compromises with each configuration to reduce weight as much as possible. When all was said and done, we just barely made weight with the two configurations -- 87.7 pounds for Fezzik (including the electronics board) and 32.1 pounds for the Speed Racer without any electronics. We were very excited for the possibilities opened up by being able to choose which configuration of the robot to field in any given match given the composition of our alliances. We also thought our approach was innovative and potentially award-worthy.

However, upon arriving at the Granite State Regional, we learned that our dual-configuration robot would not be allowed, as it was considered to be in violation of Rule R09: "Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition." We protested that we didn't have two robots, but rather one dual-configuration robot. Prior to the tournament, we had not submitted an official Q&A asking if our approach was permissible, as we thought our design was completely within the rules. However, a different line of reasoning ("If it looks like two robots, it's two robots") would indicate that our design is clearly against the rules.

On Thursday afternoon, we submitted a multi-page description of our approach and design, including photos of each configuration, to the official Q&A. (You can read the same description in a link titled "official request for clarification" in the Team News section of our website: http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/default.asp#GSR-Day1.) We realized when we submitted the Q&A that we would almost surely not hear an answer before the completion of the Granite State Regional, as those who would be involved with the decision were probably all busy at other regional tournaments! However, we wanted to submit the question to the official Q&A as soon as possible in case we might possibly have a reply prior to Saturday's elimination rounds or before we would have to pack the robot into the crate in case we qualified for the Championships. As we anticipated, we didn't receive a reply to our question during the tournament, but we still had a great time at GSR nonetheless. Fezzik performed admirably, ending up as the #4 seed, and our efforts at the tournament during the qualification rounds could be focused on Fezzik's needs rather than being split between the two different configurations.

The need for an answer to our question has been overcome by events, as we didn't qualify for the Championships (our alliance with 126 and 1307 was beaten fair and square in 4 hard-fought semifinal matches against 121, 40, and 134 who later emerged as the GSR champions) but we hope to hear the official response in the Q&A at some point regarding our dual-configuration robot.

In any case, we hope to get both Fezzik and Speed Racer some laps at post-season tournaments this summer!

im thinking that they might have accepted it if you connected speed racer to fezzik when using fezzik and then only use speed racer when you are choosing option 2. that way it should be only one robot with an option of a massive weight reduction, and argument could be stirred that its just like taking an arm off.