Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

They get DQ'd but not shown a Red Card.

5.5.3 point H.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

What you quoted.
Versus the exact wording in the Team Update and updated Game Manual https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...esComplete.pdf
Based on how R1 has been worded in the Team Update, R1 is not defining what a ROBOT IS, it is describing what a ROBOT must HAVE to be allowed to compete.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

The basic difference between the two (besides that whoever was typing R1 doesn't like the space bar) is in this line:

The ROBOT must include...BUMPERS
It [the ROBOT] includes...BUMPERS

Since by definition (from the glossary), a robot includes bumpers, R1 is restating that in order to count as a robot that could pass inspection, it "must include" bumpers. As the definition of include is "to take in or comprise as a part of a whole or group" (Merriam Webster) bumpers are part of a robot.

This doesn't pose a problem with the frame perimeter, since R2 states that "The ROBOT (excluding BUMPERS) must have a FRAME PERIMETER contained within the BUMPER ZONE." Bumpers could legally be attached to the outside of frame perimeter during the match, since by bumper rules it will be less than 15" thick.

However, like originally pointed out, this poses a conflict with R4 and the starting configuration: "In the STARTING CONFIGURATION (the physical configuration in which a ROBOT starts a MATCH), no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER, with the exception of minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc."

There is one way around this though: the time during which "a ROBOT starts a MATCH" is only as long as the start of a match. However, since the state of the match goes from "before the match" to "during the match," that period of time is infinitely small, or alternatively, doesn't exist.

But since G7 states that "when placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be: [...] D. Confined to its STARTING CONFIGURATION," the match must start as soon as robots touch the field. Since robots and people do not move infinitely fast, this would make it seem like it is impossible to get robots into a configuration from which a match could start.

The glossary once again saves us though, as a FIELD is "a 26 ft. 7 in. by 54 ft. 1 in. carpeted area, bound by and including the inward-facing surfaces of the GUARDRAILS and two (2) CASTLES." The field is purely two dimensional, and robots not touching the carpet are not on the field. Therefore, before the match starts, robots not touching the carpet are exempt from G7, and can wait until the match starts.


Therefore, the only legal robots in 2016 are flying robots.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

I was quoting the Glossary, not R1. The Glossary, by defining the word ROBOT, is defining what the word means. That's why I said "change to the definition of ROBOT" in my original post, and not "change to R1".

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

This is just a heads up to all in this forum, Team update 10 Has fixed this wording issue, and it no longer includes bumpers in the frame perimeter, so I hope that it helps everyone out.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Wow, Time to start making new bumper mounts so that we will be the one team at the event who doesn't have an illegal robot. Even without this update the bumpers shouldn't define how your robot is build. They should just be a thing that you have to put on your robot to protect not destroy your ideas.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

As I said, Check Team Update 10, it fixes all of the issues.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Ok, for us new guys not understanding some if the intricacies of the rule books, and looking for a clear answer.... Our robot is 116 around the perimeter with out bumpers attached as per our understanding of the original rules, and would make it legal. But now bumpers have to be included in the perimeter measurement of 120 inches? We are getting confused and scared because at this point a reconfiguration of the chassis would be all but impossible. So...can some one who has a clear answer help us out?

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

As others have posted before your post (including the post immediately before yours), Team Update 10 fixed the problem.

R2: Robot (excluding BUMPERS) must have a Frame Perimeter
Definitions: Frame Perimeter ... without the BUMPERS attached
R3-a: Frame Perimeter sides must not exceed 120 in (by R2 and Definition, this excludes the Bumpers)
R4: Starting Configuration ... with the exception of its Bumpers

Is there any other confusion?

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Did no one else build a set of bumpers that fits around the frame perimeter and another one that sits inside??? :ahh:

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

The definition of FRAME PERIMETER does not include bumpers. The rules were always intended to be written this way. This thread just pointed out an instance where they forgot to specify this. It wasn't a very serious thread. You're fine.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

We did, but had to add the TARDIS Chameleon circuit to the robot in order to accomplish it. Now we can remove it to save weight. It was also a real power hog.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Do you guys have a lot of free time in the final week of build? We must have made the rules too easy.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

I find it funny how people decide to look at the other posts in the forum, before posting a response when the answer to there question is in the forum, and in the rule book.