Chief Delphi
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65363)

Blue_Mist 05-03-2008 01:56
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
My personal opinion is one robot, two configurations. Only one robot will be on the field at any time, they pass the weight requirements, and they are only using one set of RC Chip/Radio for either version of the robot. Also, this is definitely outside of the box/diagonal thinking. I congratulate 1519 for their courage in trying something that is certainly different. Just adding my voice to the general clamor.

Leav 05-03-2008 02:35
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
I agree with Elgin, it is a real shame to see a team penalized for innovation - I thought that was corner stone of FIRST!

1519 - Congratulation on breaking out of the box: I think that in this respect at least FIRST has succeeded in preparing you for real life. I'd say most engineers I know are afraid of working out the box, and they tend to make life difficult for those with a more innovative mind.

Regarding the ruling: I always thought that the rule could/should be seen as "anything that will ever be on the field has to fit inside the measurement box, and when measuring, everything inside should conform to the rules (e.g. only 4 cims)."

I think that is a good definition since this would allow more flexibility and innovation without giving an unfair advantage to veteran/power teams.

-Leav

Kendal Reed 05-03-2008 19:51
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
I have read this entire thread very thoroughly, and I feel forced to conclude that the GDC has failed to define a robot sufficiently to preclude the argument that 1519's complete electronics board and electrical system is their robot and "Fezzik" and "Speed Racer" are both interchangeable MECHANISMs, making this approach entirely within the rules. The example of the robot from 2007 which had ramps and no drive system and passed inspection reinforces this argument in that the other possible "implied definition" of a robot was an electrical system and a drive base, and this possibility is clearly refuted by the existence of an approved robot without any drive system at all.

1519's approach is innovative and does not violate any explicit rules as far as I have been able to tell (Yes, I realize after seven pages of debate that probably doesn't mean squat, and I also recall seeing an objection based on the inability of either configuration to accept all of the prepared bumpers which, while neither something I can find in the rules nor something the GDC used to justify their official decision, might legitimately disqualify them), and I commend them on that.

I also believe that while the GDC obviously has the power to say "no, that's two robots," they should have done so in a manner that clearly defined a "basic robot structure" for future reference, and should not have included the last paragraph denouncing 1519 for "lawyering" and finding/creating "loopholes" in a rule through which their approach makes it clear you could drive a truck (or, perhaps more appropriately, two complete drive trains).

SU 39 05-03-2008 21:13
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
I wonder if anyone has asked GDC on the Q&A what exactly constitutes a robot?

Dan Petrovic 05-03-2008 21:33
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SU 39 (Post 713390)
I wonder if anyone has asked GDC on the Q&A what exactly constitutes a robot?
It's in the rules. It has to pass inspection. However, nowhere in the rule book does it define what a ROBOT is so that the inspectors can accurately say that something is a ROBOT and not a MECHANISM.

It has to be a ROBOT to pass inspection (and there can be only one!), but to be a ROBOT it has to pass inspection.

...interesting.

EricH 05-03-2008 21:54
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfernoX14 (Post 713400)
It has to be a ROBOT to pass inspection (and there can be only one!), but to be a ROBOT it has to pass inspection.

...interesting.
Which is exactly why we are having this debate.

In past years, ROBOT was pretty much defined as anything connected to the RC (in case of breaking, for points determination). This year? Not that specific.

Mike Harrison 05-03-2008 22:04
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
All discussion aside, I think it's totally awesome that they managed to make TWO functioning robots make weight, when some teams find that they have one robot that weighs as much as two FIRST robots nearing the end of build season. Also I think it's just crazy that they came up with this idea and ran with it, never would this have crossed my mind.

Kudos to 1519!

EricH 05-03-2008 22:32
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
I took a good, close look at the GDC's response. I examined every rule referenced. The only rule that might be broken, as the rules are written, is the definition of Robot, which is ambiguous at best when examined.

In my opinion, 1519 built ONE robot with TWO configurations. (One was a drivebase, the other was a drivebase with an arm.)

I'm pretty sure that "ROBOT" will be clearly defined next year. Otherwise, the first question the Q&A gets should be, "Please clarify the definition of Robot, as it is currently circular."

Paul Copioli 06-03-2008 18:56
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
All,

I have read most of the posts and, although the response from GDC was poor, the basic robot structure item is really what gets me.

I am in the robot industry (and that may be the reason for my bias), but a pile of electronics is never, ever considered a basic robot structure. Would the wires and furnace and pipes of a house be considered the basic building structure? No way.

I do not think 1519 lawyered the rules, but the flaw in the logic was assuming the electronics are the basic robot structure.

Maybe the simple test in the future should be: the basic robot structure should be considered a collection of parts / assemblies that can move under power in at least one degree of freedom.

When I first saw the post, I thought "there is no way that can be considered one robot." The intent was clear to me, but I have been wrong before (see blocking in hybrid thread).

Daniel_LaFleur 06-03-2008 19:13
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 713814)
All,

I have read most of the posts and, although the response from GDC was poor, the basic robot structure item is really what gets me.

I am in the robot industry (and that may be the reason for my bias), but a pile of electronics is never, ever considered a basic robot structure. Would the wires and furnace and pipes of a house be considered the basic building structure? No way.

I do not think 1519 lawyered the rules, but the flaw in the logic was assuming the electronics are the basic robot structure.

Maybe the simple test in the future should be: the basic robot structure should be considered a collection of parts / assemblies that can move under power in at least one degree of freedom.

When I first saw the post, I thought "there is no way that can be considered one robot." The intent was clear to me, but I have been wrong before (see blocking in hybrid thread).
The problem is that "robot" and "Basic robot structure" were never defined. You are defining it by your own Paradigms. Being in the robotics industry only reinforces your Paradigm and makes it more difficult to see the other argument in a fair and unbiased light.

1519 should be praised for "trying to break the mold" instead of punished. Under the current rules 1519 did no wrong, instead they tried something innovative, and for that they were told that they could not compete with one of their configurations.

It's the same as if the GDC stated "oh, we didn't mean for robots to shoot the ball ... thats not hurdling and is illegal". They could say this because they've never defined if a robot can / cannot be touching the ball when hurdling. It's our interpretation of the rules (through our Paradigms) that tells us that shooting is within the rules.

JM(NS)HO

Ty Tremblay 06-03-2008 19:57
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
I believe the problem comes down to this:

A team's INTERPRETATION of the rules versus the GDC's INTENTION of the rules.

This "intention" word seems to have shown up quite frequently in the Q&A. The GDC seems to have developed a vision of how they want this game to be played. And they seem to be allowing this vision to affect their rulings in the Q&A.

There appear to be only two ways to remedy this:

1) The GDC needs to put their "intentions" in the 2009 rule book.

2) The GDC needs to refrain from ruling based upon their "intentions" and rule purely by the rules as they are written.

Francis-134 07-03-2008 01:25
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
So as a bit of history:

In 2002 (so I've been told) team 190 had what they called the "lunchbox". Basicaly, the entire electronics board and the rotating light (good old rotating light :) ) was removable and could be carried around and even placed on the field. The box was completely covered by lexan and had velcro on the bottom of it to aid in sticking it to the floor. In several matches where the robot was not functional, they would remove the lunchbox and stick it in a corner of the field in the endzone. Once the match began (no autonomous remember), they would hit the E-Stop button, causing the rotating light to stop spinning.

While this was only done in a few matches, it acutally made them win a few! In one instance, the opposing alliance wanted to maximze their ranking points and made the match as close as possible. Well, they forgot to count the little lunchbox sitting in the endzone in the corner and the bonus it got for being there at the end of the match.

Now obviously, this was done during a very different time in FIRST's history. The rule at that period in time read that in any single configuration, the robot must be able to pass inspection. Similarly, 2002 was a pretty crazy year for rules in FIRST (tape measures, rovers, file card drives etc.). Personaly, I would like to return to this period in FIRST because I like to see innovative solutions to complex problems.

In a game where the best strategy is to constantly turn left and throw a ball over a bar, something different is always appreciated.

Racer26 07-03-2008 09:00
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
I agree with icdumbpeeps305, the GDC has been using the buzzword of 'intent' far too often this year. They want us to be creative, and yet, when we become creative with the interpretation (note: creative interpretation != bending the rules), they accuse us of "lawyering" the rules.

The GDC should know best of all of us (note: I've only been involved since 2003) that FIRST isn't about the game. Its not about how they intended to see the game played. Its about how teams can design and implement radical solutions to the daunting tasks laid out by the GDC.

I say, LET 1519 PLAY! I would be happy to lose a match to such a well designed MULTI-MECHANISM ROBOT. Sadly, its already too late, according to TIMS, BAE was their only FIRST sanctioned event this year. At least they've earned themselves notoriety as one of few teams who've instigated rule changes.

Danielle H 07-03-2008 09:39
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
I'm sorry that I haven't had time to go through all 8 pages, and so I don't know if this has been said, and I'm sorry if it has, but I read the GDC's response, and frankly, it seems like they talked themselves in a circle.

None of the rules they referenced have to do with specifically defining the basic components of a ROBOT, which would be vital in this case. If a ROBOT was defined as merely a drivetrain and some electronics, then it looks like they have two robots, because Fezzik and Speed Racer have different structures used for drive trains, even if they have the same electronics. But, if a ROBOT is defined as having 1 RC, etc, then they fit the rules as their electronics were being transferred.

And honestly, I was a little bit appalled at the last statement in the GDC's response, as it seemed to be very insulting and disrespectful of the team. By reading most of the first page of this thread, and skimming through subsequent responses from members of the 'offending' team, I see clearly that they were not looking for loopholes. It was merely their interpretation of the rules. They were not necessarily 'splitting hairs' or 'lawyering,' and to say so is purely judgmental and not constructive whatsoever.

Needless to say, I think the entire decision should have hinged on the basic definition of a robot, which is NOT CLEAR this year, no matter how clear the GDC thinks it is.

EDIT: My last statement sounded harsh, so let me justify it... what I mean to say is, when the GDC comes up with something and they write it down, naturally their rules are going to make sense and sound clear to them because they're the ones that wrote it; they know what they meant when they wrote it. But we, as outsiders to the process, have nothing more to go on than the written rules and our interpretation of said rules. The GDC might think the definition of a ROBOT is clear, but, obviously from reading some of these posts, it isn't as clear as they might think, and a more specific definition should be taken into heavy consideration for subsequent years.

Joachim 08-03-2008 10:59
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
I suggest the game development folks get someone like a technical documentation writer, a physics or math text editor, or a contract lawyer on the rules final editing team. Careful review of the rules by someone with the right skills could cut down on rulings and Q&A answers, like the one here, that seem to say "do what we meant, not what we said." The same step would benefit FTC and FLL too.

And in cases where teams find a way, under an un-strained reading of the rules, to do something different than what was intended, it would be preferable to acknowledge the gap between the rules and the intent, and fill the gap, rather than to support the intended meaning by using strained interpretations as if they were plain.

Chris Fultz 08-03-2008 15:10
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikesrock (Post 712143)
I have never seen a FIRST robot without wheels, treads or another method of moving the robot base.
There actually was such a robot at the Western Michigan Regional, 2006 I think.

Vikesrock 08-03-2008 15:27
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 714684)
There actually was such a robot at the Western Michigan Regional, 2006 I think.
Exactly, apparently there was a ramp only at some regional last year as well. But I didn't know about them and I hadn't seen them, so my perception of what an FRC robot is would require it to have a means of moving the base.

This proves that our perceptions are not a good basis for decisions that should be clearly spelled out by the rules.

EricH 08-03-2008 16:37
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikesrock (Post 714688)
Exactly, apparently there was a ramp only at some regional last year as well. But I didn't know about them and I hadn't seen them, so my perception of what an FRC robot is would require it to have a means of moving the base.

This proves that our perceptions are not a good basis for decisions that should be clearly spelled out by the rules.
That would be 702, L.A. 2007.

I think this thread is getting off-topic, and the issue is resolved. Admittedly, not necessarily resolved satisfactorily, but with the team only having one event, it's in the past.

Elgin Clock 09-03-2008 04:23
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
/wayyyy off topic.


Since the GDC didn't specify what a "ROBOT" was too clearly this year unlike previous years, let's go to another source.

According to Wikipedia, we technically only kinda/sorta build ROBOTS...

We build Telerobots apparently sometimes as well.

Quote:
  • a remotely operated vehicle is sometimes considered a robot[8] (or telerobot).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot


Interesting.
That footnote 8 source btw... NASA.
Yay for clarification! (Or should I say Yay for even more confusion?) :yikes:

Chrisms 09-03-2008 11:32
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.

Bongle 09-03-2008 11:45
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisms (Post 715004)
I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.
You say that swapping different arms (presumably with different motors and sensors) is fine.

(1)What about an arm with a substantial frame at the bottom of it?
(2)What about an arm with a substantial frame and drive motors (but no wheels) at the bottom of it?
(3)What about an arm with half a drive system at the bottom of it?
(4)What about an arm with the whole drive system at the bottom of it?

You'd probably not allow (3) or (4) judging by your post, but the problem is that the actual rules give no guidance on where this line is drawn. Where does an 'interchangeable arm' stop and a 'robot' begin? In order for there to be consistency, there needs to be a consistent answer to this question, which there isn't. It comes down to the thoughts of the person deciding. Most people in the thread would allow all four options above, some wouldn't allow (4), and some wouldn't allow (3) or (4). The GDC response doesn't help to determine where that dividing line between interchangeable mechanism and robot is, though I imagine the rulebook will next year. By a strict reading of this year's rules, it appears that all four are allowed.

Craig Roys 10-03-2008 15:39
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 714684)
There actually was such a robot at the Western Michigan Regional, 2006 I think.
It was 1718 at GLR in 2006 (our rookie year). We began with tank treads, but had many issues and switched over to wheels during the competition. During the process we had a match and our robot had no wheels. We figured we could at least run our auton to try and roll a few poofballs in for some points and then have our alliance push us into the back zone as the "back-bot". We asked if we could field the robot without wheels and the refs said yes. I'm not sure which side of the debate this falls on, but thought I would clarify on the "robot that can't move" issue.

Racer26 11-03-2008 09:13
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisms (Post 715004)
I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.
What about the third option, an electronics board with attached 'basic framework', and modular drives AS WELL AS modular arms. This is effectively what 1519 built.

The fact that they choose to change them simultaneously is irrelevant

Chrisms 11-03-2008 15:40
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy (Post 716249)
What about the third option, an electronics board with attached 'basic framework', and modular drives AS WELL AS modular arms. This is effectively what 1519 built.

The fact that they choose to change them simultaneously is irrelevant
what it looks like to me, and i'm sure to the inspectors who have 40+ teams to deal with in a very short period of time. is that there are two, independent bodies. Thats probably the only reason it was not allowed.


MORT's electrical system this years drops out, and has anderson connectors on all the wires leading to off the board so that we can remove it to keep the metal shavings out. If we had a second robot that our electronics popped into, it would be a second robot, just with a hole in the bottom for the board to screw into.

the fact that they have two independently standing + operating superstructures is what didn't allow it. I think everyone is missing the fact that both of these robots are robots in their own respect. The only difference is one of them doesn't have an RC hooked up to it. Besides that, they are fully functional alone. And thus, independent of each other.

A arm alone, is not a robot, it's an arm(in this competition, since an arm alone wouldn't really function for points). A gearbox with a wheel, is just a gearbox with a wheel, it isn't a robot. thats how a modular robot would have to be made for it to instantly be seen as "one robot"

thats my take, and i think how the people who made the call saw it. I still think it's amazing they made weight and such... with that in mind, did both fit in the starting config? I don't know if that was discussed.

Racer26 11-03-2008 16:11
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisms (Post 716516)
what it looks like to me, and i'm sure to the inspectors who have 40+ teams to deal with in a very short period of time. is that there are two, independent bodies. Thats probably the only reason it was not allowed.


MORT's electrical system this years drops out, and has anderson connectors on all the wires leading to off the board so that we can remove it to keep the metal shavings out. If we had a second robot that our electronics popped into, it would be a second robot, just with a hole in the bottom for the board to screw into.

the fact that they have two independently standing + operating superstructures is what didn't allow it. I think everyone is missing the fact that both of these robots are robots in their own respect. The only difference is one of them doesn't have an RC hooked up to it. Besides that, they are fully functional alone. And thus, independent of each other.

A arm alone, is not a robot, it's an arm(in this competition, since an arm alone wouldn't really function for points). A gearbox with a wheel, is just a gearbox with a wheel, it isn't a robot. thats how a modular robot would have to be made for it to instantly be seen as "one robot"

thats my take, and i think how the people who made the call saw it. I still think it's amazing they made weight and such... with that in mind, did both fit in the starting config? I don't know if that was discussed.
But isn't a frame with motors attached just a frame with motors attached until you add in the ROBOT controller, to make it a ROBOT? The superstructures can't operate without their brain, and since theres only one permissible ROBOT controller for each team (the 2008 one issued in this years KOP), theres only one ROBOT.

Alan Anderson 11-03-2008 16:34
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisms (Post 716516)
I think everyone is missing the fact that both of these robots are robots in their own respect.
The point of contention is whether or not the two assemblies, taken together, violate any of the rules that apply to a ROBOT. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that they do not. Together, they follow the letter of the rules.

There's only one problem: the manual does not explicitly define what a ROBOT is. The Game Design Committee agrees with your take, saying that 1519 built two robots. I'm still not convinced they built two ROBOTs, but the GDC is backing the inspectors who decided that's what they did.

Danielle H 12-03-2008 15:12
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 716546)
The point of contention is whether or not the two assemblies, taken together, violate any of the rules that apply to a ROBOT. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that they do not. Together, they follow the letter of the rules.

There's only one problem: the manual does not explicitly define what a ROBOT is. The Game Design Committee agrees with your take, saying that 1519 built two robots. I'm still not convinced they built two ROBOTs, but the GDC is backing the inspectors who decided that's what they did.
The GDC is attempting to cover their tracks, but with circular reasoning, which was actually susprising to me. Of all people, I figured the GDC could find an argument that was clear, concise, and actually CLARIFIED the rules that were used in their defense.

Their response was none of these.

They quoted rules that were very vague in themselves, and then did exactly what they accused 1519 of doing: they lawyered interpretations. In fact, they lawyered their entire response. The concept of using vague rules that you can manipulate in interpretation in attempts to back up your completely bogus point (which, that's just my opinion.. it's one robot) is exactly what the GDC did, and exactly what they were asking 1519 what to do.

Coming from the people that wrote the rules and designed the game, I figured the response would at least give people some piece of mind.. but, judging from the 6 pages of discussion that followed the posting of response, it's easy to see that no one's really satisfied.

If nothing else, I hope that the GDC takes this as a lesson to more clearly define things in the future.

((I quoted you because I agreed that I'm not convinced they built two and that they didn't clearly define ROBOT.))

dr1008 12-03-2008 15:26
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Streeter (Post 711554)
NOTE -- I originally hadn't intended to ask this question of the ChiefDelphi community prior to receiving an answer to our pending Q&A from the FIRST Game Design Committee, but so many people have asked about what happened to our dual-configuration robot in the four days since the start of our week 1 regional that I am having difficulty justifying the continued delay to reply to folks while waiting for the official Q&A response...

This year our team employed a strategy that piqued our curiousity in past years every time we saw the "different configurations of the ROBOT" phrase in the weight rule (<R12> this year) -- we built a robot with two radically different configurations.

Our first robot configuration (which we call "Fezzik") is a standard, but minimal, drive base with an arm; the second configuration ("Speed Racer / Mach 6") is a very small, light, lap-runner with a cool autonomous mode. We worked hard to minimize weight on each configuration in order to have the total for both meet the 120 pound maximum weight limit. We designed a modular electronics board which would fit in the available space for each drivetrain, as well as have the appropriate circuit breakers and speed controllers. We also made compromises with each configuration to reduce weight as much as possible. When all was said and done, we just barely made weight with the two configurations -- 87.7 pounds for Fezzik (including the electronics board) and 32.1 pounds for the Speed Racer without any electronics. We were very excited for the possibilities opened up by being able to choose which configuration of the robot to field in any given match given the composition of our alliances. We also thought our approach was innovative and potentially award-worthy.

However, upon arriving at the Granite State Regional, we learned that our dual-configuration robot would not be allowed, as it was considered to be in violation of Rule R09: "Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition." We protested that we didn't have two robots, but rather one dual-configuration robot. Prior to the tournament, we had not submitted an official Q&A asking if our approach was permissible, as we thought our design was completely within the rules. However, a different line of reasoning ("If it looks like two robots, it's two robots") would indicate that our design is clearly against the rules.

On Thursday afternoon, we submitted a multi-page description of our approach and design, including photos of each configuration, to the official Q&A. (You can read the same description in a link titled "official request for clarification" in the Team News section of our website: http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/default.asp#GSR-Day1.) We realized when we submitted the Q&A that we would almost surely not hear an answer before the completion of the Granite State Regional, as those who would be involved with the decision were probably all busy at other regional tournaments! However, we wanted to submit the question to the official Q&A as soon as possible in case we might possibly have a reply prior to Saturday's elimination rounds or before we would have to pack the robot into the crate in case we qualified for the Championships. As we anticipated, we didn't receive a reply to our question during the tournament, but we still had a great time at GSR nonetheless. Fezzik performed admirably, ending up as the #4 seed, and our efforts at the tournament during the qualification rounds could be focused on Fezzik's needs rather than being split between the two different configurations.

The need for an answer to our question has been overcome by events, as we didn't qualify for the Championships (our alliance with 126 and 1307 was beaten fair and square in 4 hard-fought semifinal matches against 121, 40, and 134 who later emerged as the GSR champions) but we hope to hear the official response in the Q&A at some point regarding our dual-configuration robot.

In any case, we hope to get both Fezzik and Speed Racer some laps at post-season tournaments this summer!
im thinking that they might have accepted it if you connected speed racer to fezzik when using fezzik and then only use speed racer when you are choosing option 2. that way it should be only one robot with an option of a massive weight reduction, and argument could be stirred that its just like taking an arm off.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:32.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi