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.