[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

I have mixed feelings on this. I agree that the weight you play at is the weight you should weigh in at, but I think the spirit of this year's rule was to put a cap on possible configurations, rather than leaving virtually unlimited potential function. Modular design is an increasingly popular trend, and I believe the rules this year were designed to prevent any one team from essentially building multiple robots. I think it's cool to see a robot with a modular arm which can alternate from ball manipulation to hanging, based on strategy. However, a robot with a standard base and multiple toppings (say, two small ball handlers, a 2x ball grabber, and a hanger) all as separate "functions" is a bit over the top. While technologically cool, in the legal sense each topping could be considered a different robot with different functions. The spirit of this year's ruling was to prevent this. All configurations must be weighed together to total no more than 130lbs.

To answer the original question, by the letter of the law, and from my experience as an inspector, I'd have to rule the second motor illegal if it tops the 130 pound limit. The rules clearly state the robot must not weigh more than 130lbs in ALL possible configurations, even if it's just one more motor. Otherwise, robots could be nickel and dimed up to more weight- if you can add an extra motor on the alternate configuration why not add another motor to another function if it's only a little over the limit.

Regarding the spare part issue- a spare part must be identical in form and function to the original part it would potentially replace. If it has different properties or different functions, it's not a spare, and would have to weigh in as an alternate configuration, which by this past season's rules, would have to be weighed in as part of the whole robot.

Marc gets it, exactly. His understanding of both the specific wording and intent of the rules is correct. I respectfully suggest everyone read his message thoroughly.

As defined in the original problem statement, Redabot is illegal and in violation of the weight constraint.

-dave