Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

The interpretation here is relatively clear, and ultimately soley at the discretion of the inspectors and referees at each event. My reasoning would have been if there is a possible weight problem due to any two mechanisms needing common parts, do your best to design and mount the common parts directly to the chasis. If a common motor is needed between two devices, mount the motor directly to the chasis, with a sprocket to use a chain, or a gear for a belt, to each device's gearbox/mechanism. Then, each mechanism can be mounted without worrying about the extra weight of a new motor between them.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Incredible! But then again, some people are still struggling with what is is. :o

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Oh, so if I have eleven drill motors (10 of which are spares), I have to account for the weight of each of them? Do I weigh in with my spare batteries too? Some people are apparently still struggling with that little problem. [Edit: As a public service announcement to others, I'm being facetious. Don't worry.]

Read what I actually said about the rules not precluding that drill being considered a spare. And the potential problem with counting the weight of parts that can be installed in different places, thanks to a configurable robot. I doubt that you did either of those things, before jumping in with a weakly-reasoned position. (Or, rather, if you dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare, you might consider actually explaining yourself.)

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

When attached to a legal functional weighed in part of your robot it is not a spare. If you attach after weigh in it becomes part of a functional part of the robot and must be weighed in. If you have 2 motors attached to parts of a legal weighed in robot then they must be counted. As soon as you place on the robot then Gracious Professionalism dictates that you take all parts to the weigh in and then re weigh. I am surprised that you of all people do not understand simplicity and stated rules. You are a smart guy. Tell me what you believe the intent of the rule to be. That being the fact that you weight in robot and ALL attachments.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

I dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare. Here is why:

As stated in the original question, the drill motor is a distinct part of the 2 assemblies. It does NOT reside on the general base and "reach up into" the assemblies in any way.

As per the 2004 rules, if a component is a piece of 2 distinct assemblies and NOT part of the robot "base" which these assemblies attach to, it must be present in both assemblies during check in.


Last year's rules were designed to discourage modularity of ANY sort. It makes sense that the rules would be aggresively designed to put teams in the "worst possible" weight scenario.

Think of it this way: "If it hurts you, it is probably the correct interpretation of the modularity rules."

All the arguments I've seen from the Lall side of things are this:
"There are multiple ways to interpret the rules, here is mine."

Yep, there are multiple ways to interpret a rule; correctly and incorrectly.
This is just so clear cut, (like Steve Warren previously said) I am shocked that you guys are unable to see it. Just because one interpretation "makes more sense" to you, doesn't mean it's the right one. FIRST went completely aginst what a lot of tems wanted. They killed modularity. We all got over it, and didn't look for a loophole.

Canadian Lawyers...
Now I understand why Dave has grey hair.

John

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Neither graciousness nor professionalism have anything to do with this problem--we can exemplify both to our hearts' content, but the fact is, there exist two reasonable interpretations of the rules, and the mere fact that one seems more altruistic doesn't excuse us from considering that the alternative is also a fair way of reading the rules. (Or maybe it isn't: that's the point we ought to be discussing.)

Steve you ask me to judge the intent of the rule. I seem to recall an issue a while back where we discussed the pros and cons of judging intent. Dave Lavery mentioned that "If you don't know the intent of the rule-writer, then all you have to go on is the words of the rule itself." While I wouldn't personally mind some consideration of intent, I don't feel that the rules and customs of FIRST allow us the luxury of doing that--largely because our judgments of intent are really just educated guesses of often-dubious validity.

Now, with regard to JVN's post, Dave has explained the intent of the rule-writers in a recent post--that was not known during the competition season, and could not be expected to have been known to any random team, unless it were officially announced. We can't argue with the benefit of that knowledge, since it was acquired ex post facto, and never officially disseminated. As we all know, Dave's answers on this forum can't be considered binding to FIRST teams at large, correct (or incorrect) as they might be. If we were to add the sum of our musings to the rules, the answer would be clear-cut, and in your favour--but we can't, because FIRST didn't.

I know why the rules were written--this was explained, and makes sense. I don't think that the rules were quite comprehensive enough to limit the scope of the robots in the manner intended.

And John, the sentence you quoted was directed at Jack, who seemed to be content with a post-and-run flame, rather than a statement of his reasoning.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Guys,
This thread has drifted a little to a really good discussion on the rules. Many of you have brought up the lawyer card in reading and interpreting rules. That is an easy deduction to make but I prefer to look at the rules as a substitute for Mother Nature. In my mind, generally, the rules keep us safe or give us a false physical limit to use for design parameters and construction. I can tell you that if you went to NASA with two attachments to be put on a spacecraft and tried to make the argument that they meet weight with a motor installed in only one, you, at best, would be laughed at. You know that both motors need to be installed for that device to fly and the weight limit is there to get it off the ground. All those inventors, scientists and engineers came up with real solutions to real world problems and did not try to bend the rules to achieve them. The rule is clear and specifies only one battery and does not include spares.
<R06> The maximum allowed weight of all robot configuration components combined is 130.0 pounds (58.97kg). At the time of weigh in, the basic robot platform and any additional items that might be used in different configurations of the robot must be weighed together. Weight limit includes (one) 12V battery, control system, decorations, bumpers, and any other attached parts.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

*pause*
This is an excellent analogy! I wouldn’t be surprise if Dave or Woodie uses it in the next Kickoff intro.

please continue debate...... ;)

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Al, I don't think the analogy quite captures the problem--as you've phrased it, doesn't it lend itself better to a scenario wherein the total weight of the as-launched vehicle is less than the limit? (That is to say, like 2003.) After all, NASA would itself be laughed at if it thought its vehicle overweight for apparatus that would not be flying with the vehicle on this trip, and which couldn't have been attached in combination with the attachment being used. In short, no, both motors do not have to be attached for the device to fly (or the robot to run), because there exists no configuration that uses both motors simultaneously--there's no place to fit it in.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

I think the point was that the rules as stated are an engineering constraint over the entire system, not just what you have on the field at any particular moment. Since this year's rules mandate weighing all attachments together, they are probably meant in this sense. The old modular rules were meant in your particular sense.

To better detail the analogy, NASA is asking for a system for astronauts to use in space to accomplish all these tasks. You wouldn't send them without one of the attachments, because then you'd never use it.

To me common sense dictates that "spare" parts are there to be swapped out when something is broken, worn out, scratched, etc. The reason that the second motor is no longer a spare is the fact that it's not being swapped out because it's already there bolted down and integrated to the assembly. No work is being done to swap it out, you're just using semantics and pretending it's being swapped for the other part without actually doing anything. So I guess my definition of a spare part includes the physical act of replacing something.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Okay, the two sides in this debate are clear-cut; my righteous brother, stick. The only way it's going to go forward is if people stop repeating themselves. Tristan has presented the exact same challenge I would have if I agreed with him (which is creepy), but it has gone largely unanswered because people can't get past other things. Here is something the other side needs to do if they are to beat Tristan through logic:

1) Don't factor in what the rulemakers intended to say, but rather what they did say, because intent of rulemkers is immaterial, especially with this rule. He quotes Dave Lavery, one of the 2004 rule writers, on this point to great effect from a different YMTC. It would seem that nearly everyone that disagrees with Tristan, including Dave, cite what Dave intended to say in the rules. JVN goes so far as to appeal to authority (since Dave said this, it must be done this way) as a reason he's right.

2) Explain to us why these two modules constitute "different configurations" as there exists no robot configuration in which both motors are used simultaneously. Here's a leading question for you: Isn't it true that enforcing/interpreting this rule here is nothing more than nitpicking, penalizing creative thinking that does not disadvantage other teams on the battlefield to even a small degree?

3) Stop invoking GP like it's the new Elvis. Whenever someone does the whole "Gracious Professionalism is on my side" routine, my body's natural reaction is to cringe. What, pray tell, makes GP on your side rather than Tristan's?

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

This issue is very simple:

The robot must be weighed in with ALL modular components.
The motor is merely another modular component, making 4 components in total (drive chassis, two functionality comonents, and one motor component)
The robot passes weight with all modular comoponets accounted for.
It's legal!

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

You guys both hit me for this one, and you were correct.
We can't use Dave's word as law. He wrote the rules, but we need to disregard his comments.

I have edited my original post.

John

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

So here's the entire relevant section. Emphasis mine. The weight is all attached parts. If you've attached the other motor it's now and attached part. Period.

I've included the example because it gives some insight into the intent here. The rule makers were obviously expecting multiple configurations to be used strategically and before a match. Time is a definite factor here. By attaching the second motor, the team quite definitely gains a benefit. They save the time it would take to detach it and reattach it. If it takes even 5 minutes, it is important, because the time between the finals matches is very short anyways.

Intent does matter if you have something to base it on and some insight into it, I think.

EDIT: It also says all configuration components. Nothing about different configurations, etc. I'll also put out here that attaching the second drill motor to the 2nd assembly makes that motor a component of that system. and it's obviously a different component than the original motor.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

" 2) Explain to us why these two modules constitute "different configurations" as there exists no robot configuration in which both motors are used simultaneously. Here's a leading question for you: Isn't it true that enforcing/interpreting this rule here is nothing more than nitpicking, penalizing creative thinking that does not disadvantage other teams on the battlefield to even a small degree?"

Tristan,
I am pretty sure you just agreed with me in that last sentence. Reread your post and think about it again.

Jonathon,
The two modules are different configurations because that is how the "what if" was presented. There is no configuration in which both motors are used just as there are no configurations in which both arms are used. Hence my support of the 2003 rules where only the most heavy configuration be weighed. Since the rule changed, my design strategy had to. Remember the "virtual team" in question brought two attachments to be inspected but only one of them was complete. Don't look at this from the standpoint that is your robot, instead look at it from the standpoint of all the other teams at the competition who weighed in with fully functional attachments and passed inspection at < or= to 130lb..