Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

Al, if they had all their electrical in one unit (e.g. 1 RC, 1 main breaker, 1 distribution block, 1 main battery, etc), would that be legal from an electrical standpoint?

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

Eric,
I am trying to show that no one specific rule will qualify a robot. It is a variety of tests. Your example begins to make a distinction between a 'robot" and an "attachment".

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

Thanks, Al, for sharing your perspective on this. As a long-time FIRST inspector, your view is particularly helpful in the discussion.

In the case of Fezzik and Speed Racer, one electrical board was moved back and forth between the two drive base configurations. There is only one main breaker, one Anderson connector, and one Rockwell block. (There is more about this in the Multi-configuration Robot Description that we submitted to the official Q&A.)

Each of Fezzik and Speed Racer fit inside the sizing box unconstrained. If necessary for sizing, we could have placed Speed Racer on Fezzik, but that would NOT have been one of our starting configurations.

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

Ken,
Thanks for the clarification of only one electrical board having all parts on it. Unfortunately, that makes it harder to make a decision from afar. Let's wait and see what the GDC decides. Anything beyond that is speculation. BTW, I know the GDC folks do watch CD from time to time and are likely reading his thread. They do not ask for my input so any of what I have posted is my opinion only and does not come from any discussion with them or any FIRST staffer. Any similarity in opinions is purely coincidental.

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

Ruling is in - 2 robots.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8985

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

Hmm that is kinda disappointing. It does seem that they don't understand that the two configurations use one set of bumpers that weighs exactly 15 pounds. That set includes 6 separate bumpers; we just choose to not put all of them on at one time. It doesn't matter as long as we cover 66% of the frame, right?

The part about rule <R114>: We only have one robot. According to us, the "robot" is the electrical board. The two bases are the attachments. All parts would be presented at the inspection. The rule says that we can use a subset of the mechanisms in a match, which we would have done.

I guess the point which makes or breaks the decision is what you define as the "basic robot structure" in rule <R12>. We call that the electrical board. The GDC calls it the robot frame.

Such a pity they didn't allow it.:(

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

Yeah, but I think that was the thing. They still have 2 separate systems and although they made them fit in the rules, it was still 2 separate systems and from a certain point of view, two separate robots.

It really is too bad. I was looking forward to watching speed racer. :(

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

I believe that the game design committee's response is flippant and not in the spirit of first. The design presented was incredibly creative and their own ruling would seem to make the 1519 design legal.

Unless I'm mistaken
"A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT"
would make their design legal.

The barb about lawyering at the end of the statement was unnecessary and not at all characteristic of the teams attitude as the have attempted to resolve the problem.

I'm still of the opinion that the RC is the robot and any additional parts are mechanisms, but I guess first would rather keep their competitions drab and beat down innovation.

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

Their point with the bumpers is not all could be attached legally to your robot at once. They would have to, as I understand it.
Edit: and the speed racer was not providing functionality on the fezzik configuration and vice versa, correct? I mean, since they're not providing functionality they can't be called mechanisms.

I certainly understand where they're coming from

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

So this means that, in theory, a team can't have differing bumper configurations? Say that sometimes they want to use a full 100% enclosing set, and another time a minimal 67% set?

I don't dispute the GDC's right to call this 2 robots vs. one, and I don't think Ken and the rest of team 1519 dispute it either. But I don't think the GDC should have accused them of attempting to lawyer the rules, when there is no clear rule defining what a ROBOT is. As I pointed out above, this is a completely valid interpretation following FLL rules, where the ROBOT is specifically defined as the NXT/RCX "brain" plus anything attached to it. In the absence of a FRC definition, 1519's interpretation of the ROBOT being the required parts - RC, Rockwell, Fuse block, etc - plus various attachments (which in their case includes frames, motors and wheels) is reasonably valid.

Perhaps a ruling should have been requested of the GDC during build season, but any team submitting a Q&A takes the risk that other teams will copy their designs, and 1519 took the alternative risk that their unique design would be allowed. They were not prohibited from playing because of the ruling, they were just restricted in their game play. That's the risk they willingly took.

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

After being at GSR and having seen both robots it really felt to me like they were two unique machines. Had smaller robot shared gearboxes, motors, battery holder and electronics you probably would have passed inspection. You could have used chain or gears to connect the two drive trains together and had the robot latch into place. This more then likely would have satisfied the rules. It was a great idea guys, if for nothing else trying to do it.

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

When we had to decide to use the hurdler robot, we zip-tied 30 lbs of dumbells to it to give greater pushing power. If there was room, we would have bolted the Speed Racer on to illustrate our point.:D

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

I suspect this is an important part of the ruling, and the biggest difference in my mind from it being "1 robot". If the speed racer config was PART the Fezzik (or at least attached together), and could be separated and leaving Fezzik behind, I suspect you wouldn't have had problems. Speed racer would essentially be a non-functional decoration component while on Fezzik.

If you wanted to bad enough, it doesn't seem to me like this is outlawed, even now. If you could make room, instead of dumbells, bolt on Speed Racer. It would look like one robot, and you could have all bumpers attached simultaneously for inspection. And to further satisfy the naysayers, perhaps you could leave the electronics in Speed racer and simply swap the motor cables and unbolt Speed Racer to change configurations.

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

Initially I felt very strongly in 1519's favor. After reviewing this ruling, particularly the claim with respect to <R114>, I'm fairly confident that their design was unfortunately illegal. Nonetheless, I am appalled by the last paragraph of the GDC's reply. We all know that there are members of the GDC who read these forums, and nobody who has read Ken's words here could possibly think that 1519 was trying to "lawyer" loopholes or split hairs. They read the rules, applied common sense, and designed what they believed to be a creative and award-worthy solution to the year's challenge. To accuse a team of trying to pull a fast one on FIRST, particularly in light of the team's gracious handling of the situation, is surprisingly unprofessional. I fully expect that this Q&A response will be revised to embody the respect owed to any competitor who tries their best to follow the rules.

Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?
 

I have to assume that this is stated merely as a clarification. Using this as an argument for one position or another would be circular reasoning, because the whole point of the question was to better define what a robot actually is.

The "basic ROBOT structure" is not defined in the rules. Judging by 1519's brief, they consider that structure to be their electronics board, as it is common to both configurations.

It would be perfectly reasonably to call their structure (i.e. the electronics board) basic, because it forms part of the robot which is used in every configuration. The word structure does not solely imply the set of components bearing the principal chassis loads. Even if it did imply that, how would this be reliably and repeatably testable by an inspector, given the multitude of robot designs out there? If it's not testable, it comes down to the official's best guess, and that's a situation that should be avoided, to maximize the consistency of officiation.

Again, the point of the original question was to ask whether the set of components constituted a robot, or if there were indeed two. It's circular to use this as justification, because the team is contending that there is only one robot. For 1519 to have violated <R114>'s implication, one would have had to presuppose that there were two robots present. Apart from the business about presupposing one robot or two, it's clear that the team took great pains to comply with this rule.

Also, this is why lawyers draft contracts stating that "instances of the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural, and vice versa". It's not there to obsfuscate, though that may be an occasional side effect.

<R08> does not specify "one set of bumpers" or anything to that effect. It is a list of requirements for whatever bumpers a team chooses to use. It is never stated that all bumpers must be used in a given configuration.

Answers like this one are the reason why it's important to establish and state clearly an order of precedence among official FIRST communications. When there's a discrepancy, nobody knows what to trust.

Also, I wonder how much of the GDC's decision was based upon the idea of maintaining consistency between events. That's a major goal among inspectors, and FIRST in general. Could it be that they were rationalizing a call that they didn't agree with, in order to prevent varying interpretations of the rule from being enforced?

Alternatively, was the GDC just trying to read their original intent into the rules, rather than thorougly considering the position they were in effect advancing? If the intent behind the definition of a robot was so important, couldn't it have been stated unambiguously in the first place?