Is this legal
 

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=45856

Do you think this is legal under the rules?

Re: Is this legal
 

I'm gonna say yes now, although my first reaction was the same.

It is a Commercially available Off The Shelf item (COTS) and as far as I can tell does not violate any other rules other than the possible way that it is secured on the robot.

I would have liked to have seen it held down with 80/20 posts above the weight coming off a right angle from the upright posts rather than just zip ties holding it down.

Other than that, it is a very innovative and creative last minute decision.

I applaud the team for their efforts that seemed to have worked out for them.

Re: Is this legal
 

After the pic was taken, the safety inspector said about the same thing regarding the 80/20 posts. The competing version of the robot had 4 very tightly secured L-brackets above the plate to keep it from bouncing around. My only other picture of it is from a distance where a ref and the signs are obscuring the mounts though.

The vices were removed during inspection, as they were deemed a safety hazard.

Engineering tidbit about those zipties: The unnamed main proponent of the zip ties was saying "they're 100lb test, therefore they can hold this 35lb weight". However, you have to consider that while ramming robots/walls/the ramp, the robot will probably decelerate at 5-10g's, thus applying up to 350lbs of force to the zipties as the weight decelerates. When thinking about test strengths, you must also consider the accelerations that those things will undergo.

Re: Is this legal
 

But if they had a shooter before wouldn't this be a secondary mode/accessory that would have to be weighed with the previous shooter mode/accessory?

Re: Is this legal
 

As long as they re-weighed and met all requirements, there is nothing wrong with it. I Love this, a team realized that their best quality was defense, and quickly improved upon it by lowering CG. :cool:

Re: Is this legal
 

I see what you're getting at, but it's legal. This would be considered a modification, not an alternate configuration. I believe that's how they bypassed that. Very innovative.

Re: Is this legal
 

The only reason they would have to do what you've described would be if they wanted to selectively swap out their shooter for their defensive setup. If they permanently (for that regional) hack off their shooter, and put dead weight on, they don't have to weigh in with all the old components as well.

Re: Is this legal
 

As an inspector at a few regionals I am going to have to agree with IndySam on this one. I personally would not allow it unless the weight plus the shooting mechanism plus the robot base did not exceed 120 pounds. It is quiet clearly a secondary strategy as shown by thier past behavior and have to be part of the multiple mechanisms weight ruling.

Re: Is this legal
 

my impression of this is that even though it is not a custom made part it would still be forbode due to rule <29> which allows for only 25lbs worth of additional parts to be brought to events by teams as upgrades for their robot.

Re: Is this legal
 

only if they plan on putting the other mechanism back on at the same regional. It essentially became a permanent change when they scrapped their shooter and stuck weights on.

Otherwise it's just treated as a modification.

Re: Is this legal
 

As an inspector at a few regionals I'm going to have to agree with IndySam on this one. The team must comply with the multiple mechanisms weight ruling. I personally would not let it go unless the base plus shooter plus new defense weights did not weigh more than 120 pounds together. This is obviously a secodary strategy based on their past experience. This one should not have made it past the inspectors.

Re: Is this legal
 

Could you please explain. I am not aware of this happening before. I also did not hear of any rumor that they had planned this in advance. They really played well defensively all of the regional.

Re: Is this legal
 

I was unsure about this wiehgt too but did my best to secure it and seems like it worked very well :D this by all means wasnt a planned thing, many team members were against this until the saw it run defensively.

Re: Is this legal
 

<R29> Teams may bring a maximum of 25 pounds of custom FABRICATED ITEMS (SPARE PARTS, REPLACEMENT PARTS, and/or UPGRADE PARTS) to each competition event to be used to repair and/or upgrade their robot at the competition site. All other FABRICATED ITEMS to be used on the robot during the competition must arrive at the competition venue packed in the shipping crate with the robot.

This rule states that only 25 pounds of fabricated parts may be brought into the competition event. I don't know of any rule that limits purchased parts (other that cost rules).

As for the two configurations of this robot. I agree with others that because there was no intention to put the shooting mechanism back on then both configurations do not need to be included in the total weight. There was a answer in the Q&A last year that explained this very clearly. Although that was last year I would assume the interpretation would be the same. If this wasn't the case then all robots that decided to make a change to a part during the regional would have to include the old and new mechanism in their weight.

This robot was inspected before the elimination rounds and passed.

I can vouch for the fact that the didn't plan on doing this before the regional. The team actually discuss this idea quite a bit before the decided to go with it. It worked great and they were a very valuable defensive partner.

Re: Is this legal
 

There is no rule about a team altering their design at an event, provided that the change is permanent(for the regional, at least)or that all configurations weigh less than 120 pounds. If they completely scrapped their shooter, they are legal. If it would take them 3 hours or so to change back, I'd say it's borderline. But from what I can tell, it's legal. I'm sure the inspectors at the event thought about this one, and, since they passed it, I'll go with their ruling, not second-guess it.

Re: Is this legal
 

Key word = bring. They obviously didn't bring this with them, since they got it from the weight room. - MY thought remains, it's still legal.

edit: This is not applicable within this rule anyways, as Nuttyman points out below, it's definitely a COTS item. Thanks for totally ruining my argument Nuttyman. :p Nonetheless, as for the Spare parts rule in general, my following original thought does apply, just not in this specific case..

Team A brings 25 pounds of Spares, replacements, and then before finals, They ask Team B for a (say 5 pounds for argument's sake) spare part at the event site that they forgot to bring, or just didn't plan ahead for. Are you gonna DQ the team from competing because they were short on supplies, and asked a team who graciously gave them what they needed yet went over the 25 pound mark? Are you going to DQ the other team for assisted rule breaking??? I don't think so.

Stop beating this horse to death. It was accepted by the inspectors, and every one else at this event, and I would accept this at my event if I were an inspector as well.

At all FIRST events there is a lot of harmony, but at other times things happen differently. You can't harmonize all these events no matter how much you want to, or how much you try. It's just not gonna happen. Things happen differently from Regional 1, to Regional 2, to Regional 3, etc. etc..
Just accept it and move on.

Re: Is this legal
 

<R28> Teams may acquire and bring an unlimited amount of COTS items to the competitions to be used to repair and/or upgrade their robot at the competition site.

Since the barbell weight is obviously a COTS item, it would not break the 25 lbs of custom parts rule. I agree with everyone that unless it was intended to be able to be removed and swapped out for their shooter, it's legal.

Re: Is this legal
 

Time to jump in here and offer the officials' perspective on the matter.¹ I was the lead inspector at Waterloo, and personally approved the modification.

The modification involved removing the shooter mechanism, and substituting a large, heavy object, in order to restore the lost weight. This was done in order to reduce the height of the centre of gravity, to permit the robot to perform better in a defensive capacity. It was performed just prior to the elimination rounds, and was appropriately re-inspected.

As for the rules, first of all, the 25 pound rule (<R29>) applies to fabricated parts only; by contrast, the large weight (the vises were removed in the final configuration) are COTS items, and therefore do not violate <R29>.

Teams are allowed and expected to make modifications at the competition site—this much is unquestionable. <R09> requires that the components that constitute all configurations of the robot be weighed together. It was decided that since the weight and vise were not brought to the competition site as robot parts, it could not have been reasonably determined that they represented additional robot configurations at the time of the original inspection.² In order to continue to satisfy <R09>, the (removed) shooter must cease to be a possible alternate configuration (or be brought under the weight limit by some other means)—this was accomplished by informing the team that they could not put the shooter back on at this event.

Basically, it's just like Cory and Derek explained. 1281's modification was legal at Waterloo.

There's also an additional complexity to the problem. The team is now unquestionably aware of the added-weight strategy, and has configured their robot to accept these parts. Since I believe that the team intends to replace the shooter at the competition (and remove the weights), they will have to choose between one or the other, next Thursday, when they are once again inspected. The configurations which they choose to abandon will become illegal for further use (but note that if subsets of both devices are used, they may still be legal after re-inspection). Confusingly, the rules don't necessarily preclude them from finding another 40 pounds of dead weight, and doing the same thing with new parts. It will fall upon the GTR lead inspector to make the determination of the team's intentions—and this isn't easy, given the fact that while plausible deniability is very much reduced the second time around, a second such modification could, in theory, be the result of honest improvisation. We (meaning a representative from 1281, Doug Hink—the lead inspector at GTR, and I) should probably discuss this next Thursday....

Also, as a historical note, I permitted 1241 (i.e. distinct from 1281) to make a similar modification last year (with a single COTS bench vise), on similar grounds. I'm quite sure that 1281 and their alliance were aware of this past ruling when they made the decision to add the weights.

¹ This post is not to be construed as an official ruling.

² It's not reasonable for an inspection to cover every possible item that a team could manage to attach to their robot (when we're talking dead weight, anything's possible). As a practical matter, the must inspectors attempt to decide whether a team intended to keep these extra parts on hand in order to configure their robot differently, or if it was just an impromptu change.

Re: Is this legal
 

Thanks for the clarification Tristan. Good job.

Re: Is this legal
 

I'd think it would look funny on their BOM.

"1 barbell $50"

;-)