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

See my post #72 in this thread. I copped out at that time. Is another robot just a "modular drivebase"? Good question! I haven't seen the hypothetical "modular drivebases" you're referring to, so I have no way of knowing.

Yes, that seems to be what they meant when they defined a FIRST robot as a remotely operated vehicle designed to perform specific tasks, in 8.1.1.

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

I'm not sure of what you're suggesting, but you can't have detachable pieces. What you put on the field must stay together as one body.

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

EDIT: After reading Al's post then mine again I have decided to replace it with a more succinct GP version.

If the rules don't clearly say who is right and wrong, and therefore whether the design is legal or not, don't we have to give the team the benefit of the doubt and allow them to compete?

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

Guys,
I have to step in here and state that this discussion is pushing the envelope a little. If you were to look at some of the dialogue from an outsider's perspective, this appears to be transcending GP. From my standpoint I am getting a little embarrassed by the repsonses. I would have never entered into this discussion had I thought it would come to this. I am all for having a lively discussion with GP in mind.

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

As an aside, there was a team last year at the Boston Regional that had no drivetrain at all. During autonomous, the team simply released a servo and let thier ramps fall to the ground. They would then sit there for the remainder of the match patiently waiting for other teams to drive up onto them (their ramp system was completely passive). This robot passed inspection.

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

As squirrel correctly points out, Section 8.1.1 says that a FIRST robot [note: lower case] is a remotely operated vehicle designed to perform specific tasks. However, per the convention provided in Section 8.1.4, that statement is not a definition. A FIRST ROBOT [note: capitalized] is defined in Section 7.2. The distinction is, of course, lawyerish.

Done correctly, lawyering can be gracious and professional. At its best the legal profession is about gracious resolution of disputes. At its worst, it encourages disputes by rewarding people who win them.

Of course it is equally true that engineering can be practiced ungraciously and unprofessionally. I'm disappointed when someone uses either 'engineer' or 'lawyer' as a perjorative label.

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

Based on this precedent, I think we can safely assume that a DRIVEBASE does not constitute a ROBOT according to FIRST. Since this is the case, it only serves to further the view that brain = ROBOT.

If a DRIVEBASE can't be considered a ROBOT (since a ROBOT without a DRIVEBASE competed in the past [yes I know, past years rules are not this years rules, but the specific rules in question have not changed]), then what is left to consider as a ROBOT, but the brains, aka the RC, battery, Victors, etc?

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

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

Many off-season events would probably just let them compete with both as separate robots.

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

Unfortunately, the official season is over for us. We will, however, be attending several off-season tournaments.

While it would be very fun to strategize with both Fezzik and Mach 6 as one robot, 1519 plans to enter as two (or maybe three-we have two speed racers) completely different teams in order to give more students the chance to drive and be part of the pit crew etc.

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.

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

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).

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?

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

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.