Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

I believe an unintended consequence of last Friday's Team Update is that it is now actually impossible to build a legal ROBOT that meets the definition of all of the rules. Obviously this isn't the intent of the GDC, and despite how the rules literally read it will never be enforced like this, but I thought it was kind of funny if nothing else.

Consider the change to the definition of ROBOT (change in bold):
So BUMPERS are now part of the definition of ROBOT. What does this mean? Consider R4:

So if BUMPERS are part of the ROBOT, but if no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the FRAME PERIMETER, then BUMPERS cannot be outside the FRAME PERIMETER, right? However, numerous BUMPER rules and the definition of BUMPER require the BUMPER to be rigidly mounted to the FRAME PERIMETER, and are thus contained outside of it.

So because of these contradicting rules, I don't actually think it's possible to legally build a robot! It both must have bumpers outside of the frame perimeter, yet no part of the robot can extend past the frame perimeter in starting configuration. Again, clearly this isn't a real issue, and is just an amusing inconsistency, so I'm mainly bringing this up to see if other, similar, more worrisome inconsistencies were created with this change. And also to hopefully inspire a good chuckle during a stressful part of build season. :)

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Your best bet is to argue that bumpers are minor protrusions?

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

I'm going to go out on a limb here, as a LRI, I will not reject a team for having bumpers outside of the frame perimeter. I don't think it was the intention of the GDC to outlaw all robots.

(Did you go to law school in Philadelphia? :) )

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Does this mean we can pack up & get some sleep?! :ahh:

Our team noticed the same issue and giggled about it. Everyone is illegal! Man, inspection's going to take so long this year...

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

How about attaching the bumpers to the inside surface of the frame perimeter?

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Yeah, in the interest of full disclosure, I didn't fully grasp this inconsistency until Drost spelled it out for me. I'm sure it will never be a real issue at competition, but it's worth pointing out.

It definitely wasn't the GDC's intention, and I certainly hope that inspectors won't be rejecting every robot this year. :) Just thought it was funny.

The rules are pretty clear that any BUMPER-like structure that is mounted to the inside of the Frame Perimeter does not meet the definition of BUMPER and is just a regular robot part.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

As an LRI... I love this! There's always at least one team at each event that goes out of their way to get on your bad side, and now we have big fat rule/definition to beat them with :p

All kidding aside, I doubt anyone will actually enforce it that way, and the GDC is sure to notice that and correct it, probably by changing the wording in the robot definition to indicate that a robot must have bumpers attached to it.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

The dilemma is not with STARTING CONFIGURATION, but with how BUMPERS are attached. STARTING CONFIGURATION is easily solved by including BUMPERS inside the FRAME PERIMETER.

Most of the rule (R26) says the BUMPERS must be attached to the "structure/frame". Using that interpretation, ROBOTS with BUMPERS must meet the 120 inch FRAME PERIMETER limitation. STARTING CONFIGURATION dilemma solved.

However, there is one part of R26 that is a problem, where it says that the "BUMPER must be backed by the FRAME PERIMETER". It is impossible for the BUMPER to be inside the FRAME PERIMETER (outside face of the BUMPER on the FRAME PERIMETER), and be backed by the FRAME PERIMETER (inside face of the BUMPER on the FRAME PERIMETER) at the same time.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

There are some subtle changes you made to the actual wording in the update of the manual that WILDLY change the meaning of the text you quoted.

The exact wording is as follows.
It is absolutely clear that your ROBOT is your Team's mechanical solution to this year's game. Your ROBOT must include all the systems listed to compete; power, comms, control, BUMPERS, and the ability to move. If you have not included all of the following on your ROBOT then it is not fit to compete.

Further if you read R2 and the Blue Box it has details that you exclude the BUMPERS from the definition of your FRAME PERIMETER.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Maybe he'd want to go toe-to-toe on bird law with you.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

I am not sure how you're drawing the conclusion that I changed the words, I literally copied and pasted them verbatim from the manual.

THe issue isn't that your bumpers define your frame perimeter, the issue is that all parts of the robot have to be within the frame perimeter for starting config, and the bumpers are defined as part of the robot.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

It also means that you need to bag your bumpers unless you want them to count against your withholding allowance.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Let's not get crazy here... R15 specifically excludes bumpers from the bagging requirement!

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

Makes the referees' job easy. Head ref just has to DQ every robot every match for not passing inspection, and the other refs just stand around.

Re: Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?
 

If they never pass inspection, they won't get DQed?

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.