Re: Ramps
 

So much of R1 is subjective, that I decided to skip ahead to find more objective rules, recalling that they were there. But yes, sentence 3 of R1 also makes the case quite clearly.

Trying to summarize all of the rules and definitions about a driver team-detached subassembly:

• One robot per team (T7)
• A robot is an assembly. (Glossary)
• An assembly consists of components which are connected, or at least touching each other. (English language)
• The robot may not detach pieces from itself. (G25)
• The drive team may not leave anything other than the robot on the field (G8)

The argument in favor of untethered robot subassemblies is then:
The key question in the ruling then, is: There were a few questions in the Q&A which were more obvious than this one, but not many. Consider the previous Q&A answers, and it's not even worth asking this one, IMHO.

Re: Ramps
 

I guess this is really an issue that revolves around the one rule that is absent this season and that is the sizing rule. In an indirect way, it also involves what we inspect as ROBOT. This season, there is no size restriction other than Transport Configuration. We have to inspect everything but it must fit inside the Transport Configuration at some point. (Which by the way is the configuration that all robots must be in when moving from pit to field and back.) If your robot is an unlimited size, it still needs to be one and only one, ROBOT. Teams that choose to have a separate part of the robot that is either passive or active, must still show that there is only one robot (See R1 below) on the field for each team. While others are trying to point to a specific rule, we must consider that the manual is something that needs to be taken as a whole. Some sections speak to robot size, some to position, some to starting position but overall everyone of them speak about THE ROBOT. As a small sample...

R1 A Team must submit their ROBOT for Inspection. The ROBOT must be built by the FRC Team to perform specific tasks when competing in RECYCLE RUSH. The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game – power, communications, control, and movement. The ROBOT implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play RECYCLE RUSH (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD, or a ROBOT designed to play a different game does not satisfy this definition).

or

R3 The ROBOT must satisfy the following size constraints:
A. during a MATCH, the ROBOT height may not exceed 78 in.
B. the ROBOT must be able to be arranged into a TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION with dimensions which do not exceed 28
in. wide, 42 in. long, and 78 in. tall.

Please note that these use the singular rather than "a" showing a clear intention that each team build and use just one robot. I believe that tethers, whether containing power or simply passive ropes, satisfies the one robot of unlimited size.

Re: Ramps
 

So when was the bright orange fishing line set up along the perimeter of the field as the tether? Was this done by the drive team before the match even started?

Re: Ramps
 

I have a few questions for Al (or anyone else that can answer without muddying the waters even further)....I just cannot see how that ramp that can be seen in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzeSsgWorFI), in the upper Right hand corner, is in any way possibly actually legal under the existing 2015 FRC ruleset, (and the admissions made in certain posts in this thread). I hope someone can possibly explain it in plain english.

1. Without being told (since there seems to be no visible and required license plates seen in either the up or the down orientation of the ramp during the match on the video, and Frank already explained that "If one has to follow a tether to figure out what robot the tethered robot element is attached to, it would be "ruled ILLEGAL." (As leaving parts and pcs. of a robot on the field would also be illegal....either by Robot or Human Player Team Action before or during the match--One must always look at both spirit and wording of rules).

The only items allowed on the field at the beginning of a match are the field elements, and game pcs., and 3 properly identified ROBOTS, Teams may not leave items that are not "The Robots" on the field either, or said match isn't ever supposed to even begin without said Robot being either quickly fixed or disabled...(I fully agree, that tethered & inspected robots, that both fit into the Transport Configuration, Height and Total single individual Team ROBOT WT. Limits, AND ARE FULLY AND PROPERLY IDENTIFIED by the Team Number rule), as long as they do not detach from one another during matches, are legal under the existing ruleset). De-tethered Robots (during a match), should be considered detached (my opinion only), but they are not to be considered so if "accidently done", as previously explained.

2. Who owns and built that ramp (Which team?) But, which team Robot is it really tethered to in the video, and was that built away from the event location? It would then be subject to that teams total Robot WT. or holdover exemptions...Or, better yet, who's 30 lbs. of additional mechanism fabrication holdout allowance is it (the 2 ramps in question), actually being charged to during that specific match or set of matches?).....I read a post by someone from Team 1114 earlier in this thread that explained that it was their "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp," and the other ramp was Team #2's on the Alliance's ramp...But, both ramps are actually tethered to another team's Robot (Robot #3 on the Alliance...Sadly, even moreso..."The New 3rd. team pick Boat Anchor BOT", please don't even get me started on that sad, sad subject), during that match in the video? Cannot even see ramp #2 in the video, also called out by Team 1114, to even see if it is properly Team license plated (per FIRST's DMV 2015 rules...which BTW I fully agree with, this years team # visibility is absolutely great!), like Frank directly said though, it would need to be legally identifyable, or would be "Ruled Illegal."

3. The direct use of a Litter through the Litter Chute to trigger the downward motion of said "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" as a Human Player Trigger off the field of actual robot movement..."acting as a driver, just not electronically done", seemed very questionable to me, but it is now on the exclusions list I guess after updates made since original publications of the 2015 ruleset. (Human Player to robot contact is illegal, "except through either tote through tote chute or litter through litter chute" being exempted). Litter over the HP wall top introduced by HP's while a robot is holding an RC (seen a lot so far this year also), should not, and does not fit that specific exemption either, but has also been allowed many times so far).

4. Items built "at the specific event site only" (not just any event), do not actually count towards anyone's 30 lbs. holdout exemptions, so I can see that IF BUILT AT THE SPECIFIC EVENT SITE using COTS pcs. & spare parts (though once built at an event site, must be added to someones hold out exemption in order to be used at another event site as "a specific set of pre-fabricated from COTS items limited to 30 lbs. total, item built at the event site are exempted"), it could possibly be a shared or loaned device, but as to "THE ROBOT" that is directly called out in R1 repeatedly (each team must submit for inspection, and use what they originally built away from the specific event site (or items built and added at the event site), in matches). Correct or not?

5. I now actually see the absolute "do nothing" during the match 3rd. "very valuable" Alliance member robot hidden on the video by a scoring monitor, though as a tether of choice, I would choose personally another tether color besides Red on a Red Carpet! And I would have at least added 4 more feet to the tether (and a forward auto bit of drive programming for them, up into the auto zone, and teleop 4' drive back), so that at least that team could feel like they were somewhat contributing Alliance members, by attempting a Robot Set, instead of just "a dead wt. tethered boat anchor" for those 2 elite stacking & performing teams. (Yes, I saw that even if they were in the auto zone, the alliance would have not received a Robot Set as 1114 ends up outside the zone in the end, after very nicely completing the yellow tote auto stack). They do get a great chance at a nice Blue Banner for contributing though since those 2 elite teams can stack very well. Yes, I digressed...SRY! (My full apologies to that 3rd. team on the alliance). YOU ARE VERY VALUABLE. My only hope now is you were also rewarded w/ that highly seeked Blue Banner too.
________________________________
I actually earlier in the season floated an off idea to build a set of community owned and built RC collecting & dragging mechanisms (community built at a single event site), to be used only by voluntary participating teams during the Auto Period to get a Can Set similar to 148's falling bridge of Gotham), but wanted to satisfy all the existing rules in the 2015 ruleset...It hasn't gone anywhere yet...But, if 1114 and the other 2 teams in that Alliance seen in the video can get away w/ those, what certainly appear apparent violations in a playoff match...Why go through the trouble of satisfying the "built at the event" requirements as long as the 2 ramps are both 30 lbs. or under, we can just choose the lightest least capable robot in the field at the event as a 3rd. pick to sit still (add our ramps to their bot, and tether to it w/ bright red length of yarn around the inside perimeter of the field).

And we don't even have to abide by the new FIRST DMV license plating rules anymore, as we have a QTR 4 GTRC playoff video as a winning argument now I guess.

There just seems to be so many rules in the ruleset that said alliance violated during that match to me. Just looking for 1 reasonable explaination as to how it could possibly be deemed possibly legal.
_________________________________
It was particularly personally gratifying to see the subject video & so many game pcs. (in a 4 robot (w/ tethered Copy/Paste on 1 Alliance) vs. 2 very high quality stacker robots + and a tethered to 2 ramp fairly dead anchor bot match), all used up in an early week (before week #3 was completed was my earlier prediction), competition event....I counted 29 Stacked Grey Totes for the Red Alliance (nowhere near my wayyy too optimistic earlier prediction though), and 5 RC Stack Caps, though very sadly zero litter in that total of 5 RC's used.

That was a scoring wipeout as also earlier predicted, and if (the shelf RC snatch & grab is sucessful & used properly, will win you the match handily & easily)! I particularly liked seeing the single bot 2 RC snatch & grab beat out the tethered 2 bot 4 RC snatch & grab....Speed is very important (as is total numbers attempted),...but speed & accuracy used together, will usually win out. Now, if all 3 had latched on fully....The results (of the RC snatch & grab at least), may have been a little bit different.

I congratulate both alliances and all 6 teams on the mission, and for all their hard work in completing and competing...I am not questioning them one bit...Just the rules implementation and allowances so far this year. Just looking for reasonable explainations, before we play, not after we play the game.

Subjectivity in rules enforcement is always a touchy game(s) subject w/ me. Just always looking for a level playing field across multiple events leading to world championships (and Champions), since each event is also a Championship qualifying event.

Re: Ramps
 

I messed up..."Bright Orange Fishing Line"...on red Carpet...Please disregard that other color suggestion then. So sorry. I went back and re-read the posting by 1114.


___________________

Added (tongue firmly in cheek).

To BOTSUP....Yeah, it just wouldn't be right or fitting to have a Boat Anchor present, and not be "fishing for points"...Ergo...Bright orange fishing line used to fish with.....SRY ALL, I just couldn't resist. (Headed to put myself in a timeout now).

Re: Ramps
 

Inspectors at the event told us that the team numbers weren't necessary, but that we would be required to use them at future events.

1114 built the ramp and brought it in within our withholding allowance, although much of it was rebuilt from COTS parts during the event. We were prepared to make a new ramp from COTS parts if required by inspectors. We were not, as they told us it was fine to use parts from our withholding allowance on other robots. At the end of the event 1547 kept the ramp to use in future events.


Correct, this is legal for the reasons you stated yourself.

Again, we went through a full re-inspection with the LRI and everything we did was ruled legal. Many teams have brought parts in for partners in the past. Full court blockers in 2013 were the most popular example of this. Regardless, we were aware that this was a gray area in the rules, hence us checking multiple times with inspectors at the event.

Understood. I agree that consistent enforcement of the rules is essential to ensure fairness for all teams across FIRST. These specific rules aren't very clear. FIRST obviously wants teams to be able to help other teams by allowing the loaning of parts. That said, I'm sure they don't want teams circumventing the 30 lb withholding allowance by using 90 pounds of parts from three other teams. I think this is something that should be Q&Aed to ensure that the rule is enforced uniformly across events.

Re: Ramps
 

Karthik,

I am slightly surprised the inspectors allowed this. I suppose I do not see where the "grey area" in the rules is.

Emphasis mine.

First Point: Withholding allowance is clearly indicated for use on that teams robot and only that teams robot (hence "their robot").

Second Point: As we all know (and no one is disputing), that withholding allowance must be "declared" during load-in at the event.

What grey area in R17 do you want to see clarified? Has 1114 posted to the Q/A yet?

We specifically planned for this and used all COTS and at-event fabricated items to add RC grabbers to 1323 last weekend. It is clearly workable within the rules, it just requires more resources and time.

-Mike

Re: Ramps
 

Hey Mike,

We just posted the following on the Q&A:

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...he-event-as-pa

We saw it as a grey area because this practice has been allowed numerous times in the past, but the wording makes it seem illegal. It's because of this contradiction that we asked the inspectors about this early and often. If they said no, we would have restarted the ramp from scratch out of COTS parts.

Re: Ramps
 

Hopefully the GDC will give a reasonable answer without preventing teams from legally helping their peers at the event. This version of the wording of the rules has remained essentially unchanged since 2012. It has been a common practice, and one which has been very beneficial for many teams. For example, adding a shot blocker in 2013 or giving a team a spare intake in 2014 to allow them to inbound/assist.

The challenge this year is that it feels different because in a lot of cases with the passive ramps or with center can grabbers, the receiving team is less of an active participant and more just a thing on the field to attach part of another robot to. It feels different, even though it's legally the same.

Unfortunately the rules do not differentiate FABRICATED ITEMS from parts vs assemblies. If I have some fabricated brackets/gussets/tube stock with holes drilled in it that I want to give a team, that would be technically as illegal as giving them an entire mechanism.

Re: Ramps
 

Just to clarify, if items built at an event or brought to an event as part of a team's WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE are bagged with the robot at the end of that teams first event, Then those items would not count against that team's WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE at their second event.

Re: Ramps
 

"Inspectors at the event told us that the team numbers weren't necessary, but that we would be required to use them at future events."


"Understood. I agree that consistent enforcement of the rules is essential to ensure fairness for all teams across FIRST. These specific rules aren't very clear. FIRST obviously wants teams to be able to help other teams by allowing the loaning of parts. That said, I'm sure they don't want teams circumventing the 30 lb withholding allowance by using 90 pounds of parts from three other teams. I think this is something that should be Q&Aed to ensure that the rule is enforced uniformly across events.

____________________
Karthik

1.) I fully appreciate (my friend), you answering my questions directly...But, the subjectivity of which "The Volunteer FIRST Officials" allowed your team (And the entire Alliance, in my personal opinion only), to violate the rules based on answer 1 stated above...Means to me that "unless ALL teams are allowed to violate the same rules equally" from event to event this entire season....There is only individual subjectivity. (Never a good thing as I stated, every event is a Championship Qualifying Event) The results of that event, qualify you to compete at Championships....All 3 Teams. And others not to compete there.

Frank fully and completely answered the question "if anyone has to track the tether back to find out what robot it is attached to, it will be deemed ILLEGAL." Evidentally....ILLEGAL...Unless it's not.

2.) IF the rules aren't very clear...There is the Q & A to get clarification. All Teams & Team members reqistered w/ FIRST FRC in Tims have access "before competing", to both the questions asked & answers given on the further clarifying each rule questioned.

Which is what I said....It isn't a team issue (I expect you to attempt, IF ALLOWED, or simply put, your team to get away with what you interpret the rules actually mean).

But, that is why we have OFFICIALS, INSPECTIONS, and further RULES interpreters such as GDC's Q & A...It IS AN OFFICIATING ISSUE. AND SUBJECTIVITY between multiple events, teams, locations. (It is never "It is OK This time...But, next time it will not be".....It is always, that satisfies the rules (DEEMED LEGAL)...Or, I'm sorry, That Does Not satisfy the rules (DEEMED ILLEGAL), or, I'll check to see if that is legal for you. It is why they call them RULES.

FRANK officially clarified in writing further the rule the OFFICIALS perportedly allowed your alliance to violate. That isn't your issue, that is THEIR issue I take umbrage with. But it is now your Banner, Title, OPR, fantastic work product and gameplay, and team legacy a little subjectivity puts slightly at risk. Which is a shame in my mind, as the last thing someone should mess (IMHO), with is "a near perfectly designed, created, and working Robot for the game and an absolutely great team!" (No, 3 teams, and your competition, and every other team playing the game the entire FRC season).

Secondly...I understand loaning parts (Team 60 loans plenty of parts and COTS Items, we help plenty of teams even assemble their and our loaned parts, if they are not ready come competition time, if you are at an event and our team is there, come see us)...But, we do not loan teams entire pre-fabricated whole mechanisms that were/are a part of our built "THE Robot" as defined in R1 or our pre-fabricated 30lb. allowance, as Al kindly listed R1.

Hey, if 30 lbs. is good...90 must be better....(If you allow 1, you must allow the other!)

It just does not fit the "Teams shall have access to a set of static pre-fabricated items not to exceed 30 lbs., that shall be referred to as the witholding allowance" definition in my interpretation.

I agree if you had brought the "Legal COTS items & spare parts" to the event, & actually built it there, it would not count towards anyones withholding allowance. Nor anyones original "THE Robot" as referred to in R1. I went so far as to suggest a (community provided, owned, built onsite project...To test that ruleset). And I agree with you, materials, you loan it, they now own it now type of philosophy (except for tools & money of course)...Great job there!

One more question my friend...What is the combined Total WT. of your Team 1114 Robot (as weighed at the event using the official FIRST Inspection scales), and the Team 1114 pre-Fabricated "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" in question that was loaned....If I can respectfully ask that? (I just want to make sure I have all the actual facts, and leave my personal supposition fully on the table.
_________________________________
As I read (and re-read), the answers...I realized I was right....It ACTUALLY ISN'T Legal for all FRC teams to make pick #3 the bo(a)t anchor using our pre-fabricated & loaned out, but unidentified (as 2015 FRC required by the Robot ruleset), ramps. So, the SUBJECTIVITY OF THE OFFICIATING sucks for just everyone else.

The 2015 (Change, change, change is coming!), Ruleset is all that matters in the 2015 Game....What was legal in years before does not matter. Period. Subjectivity in rules application is never fair. And, it should always be highly discouraged.

I'll certainly (in the name & spirit of GP), totally drop the subject now here. Sincerely though Karthik, I thank you for the question answers given so far (I truly do appreciate them), and hope you will answer the Combined WT. question posed later. I think I already have all the "Is it...or was it really 2015FIRST FRC legal" answers I need, now firmly grasped.

____________________________
NOTE: None of the above or any post I make on CD represents any FIRST Team whatsoever, whenever....It represents only my personal thoughts, questions, opinions, and feelings.

Re: Ramps
 

Our robot's final weight was 119.4 lbs. The ramp weighed about 7.5 lbs. Thus the combined weight you requested in 126.9 lbs. However, when the ramp was tethered to 1547, its weight increased, as they transferred some ballast from 1547's main robot to the ramp. 1547's main robot weighed about 90 lbs prior to the addition of our ramp and 610's ramp. (610's ramp which was entirely built on site during the competition)

Re: Ramps
 

That was a great question to pose to the Q & A...And correctly and fully worded...Something I was looking for an answer to also weeks ago during build season that I am interested in seeing answered too (the built at the event part from COTS items). Yes, I thought about actually stretching rules too, without bending and/or breaking any of the published 2015 ruleset. And doing so as a voluntary community project (previously posed & published weeks ago here on CD).

Please, everyone understand I was questioning just something I saw on the video link posted here in this thread, and looking at it in its entirety (adding in the 1114 post, to the video evidence, after I read the entire thread to that point, digesting all "the parts & pcs." that I understood at that time), & was questioning only the legality of that w/ the ruleset all must go by this year, and could not understand how all parts of the whole, when put together as used, could poissibly be legal for all FRC teams competing in 2015 to do in the same, in the manner they were used. (The not labelling w/ the "required License Plates" also had full bearing on all my questioning)....Because I saw Frank's Blog Post concerning tethered Robot Pcs. too!

"Inspectors at the event told us that the team numbers weren't necessary, but that we would be required to use them at future events."


That answer was what really muddied the water for me. It does not match..."would be deemed ILLEGAL."

Please understand....I am not questioning anyones ethics or accomplishments thus far....I am only questioning "Subjectivity in Rules Enforcement." It always leads to an unlevel playing field for all. A Week 1 event is just as important as a final week event, all matches & events determine the Championship qualifiers & invitees.

I was also looking at "Can we do that too?" Is it really fully 2015 FRC legal? Mainly because the first time I looked at the video I didn't see more than 2 Red Alliance Robots, and no tether whatsoever...So I read the whole thread, and took everything I had an answer on at that time (some suppositions Karthik cleared up, some he clarified & confirmed...TY my friend), and then I went and read the rules that applied again, and still didn't think it satisfied all of them along w/ the supplemental published clarifications. Then posed the questions here.

Sry for creating a manure storm. But, curious minds still wish to know the GDC Q & A answers to.....As, I thought I'd parsed (and picked the game apart a million ways), the game pretty well weeks ago.

Re: Ramps
 

Karthik,

Thank you for the Combined Wt. Answer...and your candor/honesty, and the added clarification of weight transfer when tethered to the other robot. (That also helps a ton, pun intended).

I'll assume (since the total was in excess of 125 lbs. total), that it was weighed with your robot originally at initial inspection as a part of your specific 30 lbs. of pre-fabricated witholding allowance and declared at load-in, if bagged w/ your robot....But, I also assume (maybe wrongly), that it was built to loan, and not necessarily to use tethered to 1114.

And, I will assume IF you did intend on using it w/ your robot at any time - directly tethered to 1114, that you would have had to remove some weight on your robot to be under the max. wt., re-inspected and re-weighed. I personally have not YET seen any vids except the QTR 4-GTRC Vid (but am headed that way to look up and watch all I can, to see how it was used in other matches, or even if it was during Q's and other Playoff rounds). I like to have seen or questioned all avail. evidence, before I comment beyond questions I can possibly find. Curious minds just (still), like to know...

Ahhh, I'm getting in a lot deeper than originally planned here, I'll stop, go watch vids, wait for the GDC Q & A answer(s), then maybe post back later.

Thanks all...Especially you Karthik.

Re: Ramps
 

It was built both as possible addition to our robot if we could make it lighter and loose weight on our main robot, or as a device to use for our partners. And yes, the parts that were pre-cut or pre-assembled were included in our withholding allowances. The raw materials, that ended up being part of it, naturally were not.

Correct. We have some weight loss contingencies, but decided the trade offs and effort weren't worth it at the time.

You're welcome. I'm looking forward to the Q&A response as well.