Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

For the purposes of this particular discussion, John was right in appealing to Dave's post. Dave does have a better understanding of the rules than any of us here, as he did have influence in writing the 2004 rules. To quote the original post of this thread, as is the case with all other YMTC threads: "Based on the 2004 Robot Rules, YOU MAKE THE CALL!"

Therefore, for all intents and purposes of this thread, Dave, as a 2004 rulemaker, would have the supreme authority in defining what the boundaries of the 2004 rules were, which in this particular case say "All configurations cumulatively must weigh less than 130.0 pounds."

Also for the purposes of this discussion, as presented in the original post, Jumpy is the mechanism to hang from the bar, while Grabby is the mechanism to pick up the balls. I'd certainly call them distinctly different functions, so clearly one mechanism is not a spare for the other. Nor would it be fair to call the drill motor between them a "spare," as ultimately when installed in each mechanism, it will clearly perform a different function.

I'll throw this thought out for all to munch on: A drill motor by itself is just that- a drill motor. By itself it has no function other than to spin itself until it's brushings wear out. However, couple the drill motor with another device to perform a function, and the potential use of the drill motor changes from merely spinning, to driving a mechanism. By extension and definition, the drill motor becomes whatever device it's coupled with. When the drill motor is seated in Jumpy, it's only function is to reach up and grab the bar. When the motor is mounted in Grabby, it's only function is to collect balls. Deductive reasoning tells me the drill motor is not defined as a drill motor by itself, but as the devices it drives. By that logic, there is no way it can be considered a spare part, because the functions it performs in each mechanism as totally different. The only legal way around the problem would be to lose enough weight to compensate for the presence of another drill motor, such that both mechanisms are operable at the time of weigh in.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

A spare part is "an exact replacement for parts on the robot." - It cannot be a spare if the part was never in the component in the first place. [<R09> bullet four.]

Jumpy was weighed without a drill motor because the team believed that the drill motor mounted in Grabby was a spare replacement for Jumpy. By definition, replacing is the act of switching stuff out. The drill motor cannot be swapped into Jumpy because it is not being swapped- there is an empty spot in Jumpy and nothing can be put there.

Grabby's drill motor cannot be a 'replacement' into Jumpy's transmission because there was never a motor there to begin with.

_Alex

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Okay, now we are actually getting somewhere. Though I love how everybody assumes that I am of the same opinion as Tristan even though I never stated my position on this. I just broke down the core of his argument for everyone to take shots at, and somehow (as I suspected might happen) I'm grouped with him due to a similarity in last names. I'm asking others to articulate why Tristan is wrong using written rules; as an inspector or mentor, there is no way I would let this go, but my bias means next to nothing, as does that of everybody else on this forum. That's why I asked for objective explanation. Luckily, I don't take offense to being labelled a lawyer; perhaps I take comfort in the fact that attorneys have much higher average IQs than professional engineers.

Marc, I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, but you are simply wrong in your point about the appeal to authority. I was pointing out that it was a fallacy in logic (argumentum ad verecundiam) to use the rule writer's intent as an extension of the rules. Dave has the potential to have the exact same knowledge as you or I of what the rules say, which is what is important. You don't help yourself by quoting "Based on the 2004 Robot Rules, YOU MAKE THE CALL", since you're definitely not following your own advice here.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Thanks for highlighting those posts for me. When you see what is being weighed in, how many motors do you see? Exactly 1! Therefore you would need to attach only 1 motor to the attachments not two. You have answered your own question. This is also why I disagree with Al. Your attachments do not have to be in working order when weighed in. They must however be all present. You could add multiple attachments at any time as long as total weight of all is equal to or less than 130 lb.

Tristan you never really rebutted my earlier comment except about GP and intent. The first part stated the facts.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

I'll take that one up. I don't think it's a silly semantic argument. You can't say that the extra motor is a spare part mounted for convenience, because it's mounted and already hooked into the system. If you can put a battery across it and the whole assembly jumps, it's not really a spare part anymore.

Also, to say that it's a spare mounted for convenience is to be disingenuous at best. It's tantamount to pre-emptively swapping the original motor for its spare everytime you change assemblies. And then swapping right back to the old motor when you're done with that mechanism. And doing that several times per regional. It doesn't really sound like a spare anymore after that.

This is in contrast to, say, mounting a spare breaker or victor on the robot somewhere. That spare isn't in the system till you connect it. And you only swap it in when something breaks. Of course, it still counts against your weight. I think it still counts against your weight even if it is a spare, really. So long as it's attached to your robot.

EDIT: Swapped paragraphs for clarity.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

I don't think it's a badly conceived rule though. In my experience, there IS a way to tell whether a drill motor is a spare part. My team keeps our spare motors in their boxes until needed. These are kept aside in the event one of the pre-mounted motors burns out. Our intentions for this motor are clear- it's kept as a spare/replacement (the two words are interchangeable here) for a mechanism on the robot who's function is consistent upon changing the motor.

"There's no universal way of determining whether their extra drill is a spare part, mounted on the mechanism for convenience (where it is legal) or a part of the mechanism (where it is illegal, due to weight)."

This is more a matter of perception than anything else. As a referee/inspector, if a team claimed to have a "spare" drill motor already mounted on a mechanism for convenience, and it was clearly a different mechanism from one already mounted on the robot, I'd have to tell them to lose some weight if the total was over 130.0 (ideal solution, where everyone ends up happy and legal), or they can't use the extra arm (the apparent intention of the rule in question- to limit possible modular configurations).

The example of Redabot probably isn't the best way to illustrate the intention of the rule, where the weight is close enough where something can probably be chopped to make it legal. Rather, say the weight of Redabot by itself is 118.0, while Jumpy is 10.0. Grabby weighs 12.0 pounds. Clearly under the 2004 rules* only one mechanism would be legal, period. The total sum of all possible configurations would be 140. Under the 2003 rules, this would have been perfectly fine- the heaviest configuration would be with Grabby, and weigh in at 130.0.

Both mechanisms have parts in common. Both are made of aluminum, both have belts, and motors, and bolts, and rivets. Should we consider the aluminum itself a spare part, because it's common between the two? Would it then be fair to consider the drill motor a spare part because it's shared between the two? How about the bolts holding them both together?

I know the extremist argument doesn't usually work, but it's getting late and my brain is shutting down for the night, and I'm running out of fuel to debate. Hopefully you can see what I'm saying though.


*Jonathan correctly pointed out the purpose of this thread to be "YOU make the call" rather than going to the original source of the rules, but my intention was to highlight the "Based on the 2004 rules" part, and since an original source of the rules is conveniently handy around these parts, ultimately, the official FIRST ruling comes from his general direction, regardless of what the group decides here.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

OK, a swing and a miss on the first one. Strike One. But you followed up with a drive to right field and you get a clean single. Man on base.

Good attempt to bring in the prior discussion regarding the necessity for referees to ignore "intent" when making their rulings, but I would postulate that it is irrelevant to this discussion. The referenced discussion had to do with the ability of referees to determine the "intent" of a team’s actions as they played the game. In that scenario, the referees are required to make instantaneous decisions based solely on what they can observe at that moment. With only a few rare exceptions, there is no opportunity for debate or deliberation. In such a situation, the only data that can be considered reliable is that directly observed by the referees. There is no ability to determine “intent,” therefore, it must be ignored by the referee. But in the case of determining the “intent” of a rule, the situation is different. When the rules are made public at the beginning of the season, there is ample opportunity to examine, discuss and review the rules. At the kick off, teams are invited to look at the rules and to strive for the simplest, most basic “non-lawyer-ish” interpretation possible. If there is still confusion you have many opportunities, through multiple channels, to seek clarification. There is time and means for discussion to understand the intent of the rules and the rule-makers. Unlike the former example, where there is no time to discover “intent,” this is a situation where you are explicitly invited by FIRST to investigate and understand the intent of the rules and how they may affect your robot design and game-playing strategy. Thus, the prior discussion really doesn’t have any bearing on this thread.

On the other hand, you are correct in the assertion that my comments in this forum can't be considered binding. As I have stated before, any comments I make here DO NOT represent any official positions by FIRST. I am not speaking for them, just for myself (and occasionally my team and/or NASA). While I do have some insights into some of the discussions that take place while the game and rules are being developed, I do not participate in all of them and I am not the only one in those discussions. There are many, many other opinions, positions and ideas that are contributed by the members of the Game Design Committee. At the end of that process, the consensus opinions and final determinations are represented and issued by FIRST (and only FIRST). So please just take my comments for what they are - slightly informed opinions that may offer partial insights and some modicum of clarification, but not words from The Oracle (for those, you have to talk to Woodie :) ).

You may now return to your previously scheduled arguing... :)

-dave

p.s. Hey!!

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

According to the initial scenario, the extra motor is sitting on the sidelines, possibly attached to the unused assembly; the robot is competing with one drill motor, attached to the other assembly ("one mechanism is on Redabot"). I don't think that we're looking at the same situation here--aren't you stating that the second motor is also present ("mounted and already hooked into the system")?
Would you have the same objection to a team that swapped identical components in this manner? How do you know when such a thing ceases to "sound like a spare"? And what would be wrong with pre-emptively swapping the motor between some matches? After all, how is that distinct from a preventative maintenance program?
I'm pretty certain, now, that we're looking at different scenarios. If it is on the robot during a match (as you seem to be describing with the above), it has to be counted--this is like having both assemblies on the robot at once. For the "second" assembly to be used as inspected, it needs a drill. But, I refer once again to this: "one mechanism is on Redabot". I would surmise that the other mechanism is elsewhere, and not participating in any match.



Steve, I think that it's agreed that only one drill motor can be on the robot which competes during any given match--a second drill would violate the weight rules; but since there is only one place that a single drill can be attached to the robot during a match (on one assembly or the other, but never both, because they are never present together), this is not significant--rather, it is impossible. (This may be a source of confusion, but I don't think I ever said otherwise--maybe I was ambiguous somewhere, or you misinterpreted my statements?) But--what's the difference between putting the second drill on the the loose assembly while the first one is still attached to the connected assembly, or waiting until the connected assembly's drill is removed before attaching the second drill to the loose assembly? Again, I wonder, is FIRST trying to regulate the timing of these events, between matches? And if they were, why didn't they just say so?



I agree.
Thanks to this, I just had another one of my off-the-wall thoughts...since we're required to have our robots re-inspected whenever we make any substantial change, what prevents a team from choosing either of the above modules before a match, then going to get re-inspected with the new configuration? I would guess that only their last-inspected configuration is legal, but the team is effectively making the choice in exactly the same fashion as before--and the total weight in any last-inspected state is always no greater than 130 pounds. The fact that this renders all previous states unusable is not relevant; re-inspection is a blank slate--it needs to be, in order to accomodate modifications made at a competition.
You see the problem with easily defining parts and related terminology--the implications of your questions are what I was concerned about, when I noted that a silly semantic argument with no clear-cut resolution could result.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Dave, I certainly don't contest the primary purpose of the linked thread, but I do think that there is merit to the notion that a random FIRST team, like an inexperienced referee, may not be as well-versed in nuances of intent as we veterans are. We need to make sure that the rules are clear-cut for the hypothetical lone rookie team in deepest, darkest Utah, whose only source of communication with FIRST comes in the form of rules, updates and the official (and often inconsistent) Q&A forum. When they, as laypeople, listen to Dean and Woodie at the kickoff, they may hear motivational speeches and little more, because they do not yet have the context to understand the underlying "spirit of FIRST" that Dean and Woodie exude. It's like a Catholic visiting a Baptist church--they understand, but they don't understand it all. The rules and their kin are dry, technical documents, which, once again, provide precious little context for these people. Just as new students often don't "get it" until they are present at their first FIRST regional, a new team may not understand that which we take for granted, until they show up at a regional and find themselves in violation not of an explicit rule, but a convention that has gained the force and effect of one. We can fault them for not doing enough to educate themselves, and to an extent, that is fair; but that doesn't absolve us of the need to try to make it as unambiguous for them as possible, while still balancing the other concerns that obviously affect the rule-makers' choices. While a new referee will have but a day or so to learn the nuances, I would submit that a new team, in the absence of guidance from the FIRST community, might well develop its own concept of the competition in a similarly short time, and will continue to exhibit that mindset until it is confronted with the reality of an event, several months later. Though hypothetical, I don't think that scenario is unreasonalble; since we would probably consider that undesirable, we should guard against it as well as we can, by offering guidance to the team, writing rules that do not lend themselves misinterpretation due to a rookie's mistaken impressions, and being empathetic to the fact that ultimately, we do seek growth for FIRST--why not aspire to make it simple for the layman to understand, but not so simple as to lose the precise concepts that we wish to convey?

Indeed, I know that Dave and the others who discuss game design seek to understand and cater to the needs of the community, and while I may disagree with them or others on certain specifics (like those littered throughout this thread) I just want to argue don't question the good intentions of those productively involved. I merely try to approach the question from an unconventional, but reasoned perspective.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

This is significant. The fact that as soon as you add the motor to the arm you are required to re weigh the robot AND any attachments. That IS the rule. If there are motors on both assembles at the same time then both must be weighed. I am not arguing the running weight of the robot nor am I arguing that the second function is not being used. KISS states that both the robot and all configurations MUST be weighed in before competing and after ANY modifications that could add weight to the robot. A good debater always tries to take the subject slightly off topic to confuse those being debated with. I however will not allow you to change the fact of what the rules STATES. You have broght this issue up with many about the wording. KISS dictates that the rule be read in it's entire form, not modified or interpreted, not pushed to the boundaries or over them.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

You're right. We are looking at different scenarios. As described, during inspection, the extra drill motor is nowhere to be found on either mechanism; it's back in the pit somewhere. The team shows up at the inspection station with the base, Jumpy, Grabby, and one drill motor to swap between them. The drill motor is swapped to whichever mechanism is in play. This sounds mostly legal to me.

The issue is that later, the team installs an extra drill motor into the other mechanism so that now there is no more swapping a drill motor back and forth between mechanisms. Ever.

Presumably, if you weighed in now, you'd weigh in the base, Jumpy, Grabby, and two drill motors. The extra drill motor would put you over weight, because it's sitting there attached to the other mechanism and is being counted on weight now. To make weight, you would have to look the inspector in the eye and tell him/her that the other drill motor there is just a spare and shouldn't count against you. Yes, it's attached to the part and fully integrated and all, but it's just a spare. This is the problem we "illegal" types have, because at this point we see that the robot is clearly over weight because the new motor is now attached and we can't understand how it could possibly be considered a spare now.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Kevin,
Not to confuse the issue... We call this "passing the red face test". If you can stand in front of someone and state your case without geting red in the face, then you pass the test. I don't think anyone could pass the test, as you state it above, without getting red.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

Those with no scruples.

Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
 

But that's just it, this discussion was intended to be "Based on the 2004 rules," which again, state the weight of the robot with all functions combined (whether or not attached, all modules must be present on the weight platform) to be no more than 130 pounds. It wouldn't matter when or why a robot would be reinspected, or whether or not the configuration changes- the robot must still be weighed with all modules and attachments on the scale at the same time. Re-inspection is indeed a blank slate- however, under the 2004 rules, it must still include all modular states the team intends to use during the course of competition. Any module usage whos components were not weighed in at the time of initial inspection would be illegal until officially weighed in with all other components. I know it sounds repetative, but it is my main argument. Everything Tristan has been saying is correct, provided we were governed by the 2003 rules. But the 2004 rules are such as they are for the purpose of preventing or "making difficult" the type of scenario this thread is discussing- the usage of multiple modules for multiple purposes. I'm inclined to agree with what Al said a number of posts back- the mechanism lacking the drill motor would be considered incomplete, invalidating it's status as an alternate configuration.

I agree.