View Single Post
  #54   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-12-2004, 00:03
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
I'll take that one up. I don't think it's a silly semantic argument. You can't say that the extra motor is a spare part mounted for convenience, because it's mounted and already hooked into the system. If you can put a battery across it and the whole assembly jumps, it's not really a spare part anymore.
According to the initial scenario, the extra motor is sitting on the sidelines, possibly attached to the unused assembly; the robot is competing with one drill motor, attached to the other assembly ("one mechanism is on Redabot"). I don't think that we're looking at the same situation here--aren't you stating that the second motor is also present ("mounted and already hooked into the system")?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
Also, to say that it's a spare mounted for convenience is to be disingenuous at best. It's tantamount to pre-emptively swapping the original motor for its spare everytime you change assemblies. And then swapping right back to the old motor when you're done with that mechanism. And doing that several times per regional. It doesn't really sound like a spare anymore after that.
Would you have the same objection to a team that swapped identical components in this manner? How do you know when such a thing ceases to "sound like a spare"? And what would be wrong with pre-emptively swapping the motor between some matches? After all, how is that distinct from a preventative maintenance program?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
This is in contrast to, say, mounting a spare breaker or victor on the robot somewhere. That spare isn't in the system till you connect it. And you only swap it in when something breaks. Of course, it still counts against your weight. I think it still counts against your weight even if it is a spare, really. So long as it's attached to your robot.
I'm pretty certain, now, that we're looking at different scenarios. If it is on the robot during a match (as you seem to be describing with the above), it has to be counted--this is like having both assemblies on the robot at once. For the "second" assembly to be used as inspected, it needs a drill. But, I refer once again to this: "one mechanism is on Redabot". I would surmise that the other mechanism is elsewhere, and not participating in any match.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve W
Thanks for highlighting those posts for me. When you see what is being weighed in, how many motors do you see? Exactly 1! Therefore you would need to attach only 1 motor to the attachments not two. You have answered your own question. This is also why I disagree with Al. Your attachments do not have to be in working order when weighed in. They must however be all present. You could add multiple attachments at any time as long as total weight of all is equal to or less than 130 lb.
Steve, I think that it's agreed that only one drill motor can be on the robot which competes during any given match--a second drill would violate the weight rules; but since there is only one place that a single drill can be attached to the robot during a match (on one assembly or the other, but never both, because they are never present together), this is not significant--rather, it is impossible. (This may be a source of confusion, but I don't think I ever said otherwise--maybe I was ambiguous somewhere, or you misinterpreted my statements?) But--what's the difference between putting the second drill on the the loose assembly while the first one is still attached to the connected assembly, or waiting until the connected assembly's drill is removed before attaching the second drill to the loose assembly? Again, I wonder, is FIRST trying to regulate the timing of these events, between matches? And if they were, why didn't they just say so?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc P.
This is more a matter of perception than anything else.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc P.
The example of Redabot probably isn't the best way to illustrate the intention of the rule, where the weight is close enough where something can probably be chopped to make it legal. Rather, say the weight of Redabot by itself is 118.0, while Jumpy is 10.0. Grabby weighs 12.0 pounds. Clearly under the 2004 rules* only one mechanism would be legal, period. The total sum of all possible configurations would be 140. Under the 2003 rules, this would have been perfectly fine- the heaviest configuration would be with Grabby, and weigh in at 130.0.
Thanks to this, I just had another one of my off-the-wall thoughts...since we're required to have our robots re-inspected whenever we make any substantial change, what prevents a team from choosing either of the above modules before a match, then going to get re-inspected with the new configuration? I would guess that only their last-inspected configuration is legal, but the team is effectively making the choice in exactly the same fashion as before--and the total weight in any last-inspected state is always no greater than 130 pounds. The fact that this renders all previous states unusable is not relevant; re-inspection is a blank slate--it needs to be, in order to accomodate modifications made at a competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc P.
Both mechanisms have parts in common. Both are made of aluminum, both have belts, and motors, and bolts, and rivets. Should we consider the aluminum itself a spare part, because it's common between the two? Would it then be fair to consider the drill motor a spare part because it's shared between the two? How about the bolts holding them both together?
You see the problem with easily defining parts and related terminology--the implications of your questions are what I was concerned about, when I noted that a silly semantic argument with no clear-cut resolution could result.
Reply With Quote