After having read the brief submitted to the GDC, and looked at the pictures and video posted of 1519's multiple-configuration robot, I can't see any reason to rule against it.
I too recall that past definitions of robots specified a minimal set of components. Since that is not in effect this year, I would be inclined to deem anything that meets all of the rules mandating certain configurations as a legal robot. (Most of those rules are electrical in nature, so a minimal robot would contain some electronics, a flag holder, and little else. That minimal robot might even be separate pieces, satisfying the rules as a set.)
I'm very curious what the GDC will say, and which rules they'll use to justify it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alex469
Here's where it may get tricky - if your electronics board is the "stationary" component in the sizing, then it should be mounted at the same "x,y coordinates" on both robots. From the looks of it, Mach 6 is small enough that this should not be a problem.
|
I don't agree with the notion of requiring the same
x- and
y-co-ordinates. I don't believe that the rules require any such thing. It's like the "front" of the robot: I consider that to be arbitrary, and defined at the discretion of the robot's designer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dtengineering
P.S. I note the CAD drawing of Fezzik in the request for clarification shows 4 CIMs attached to the gearboxes? Just an oversight, I presume?
|
Additionally, Jason brings up an interesting point, regarding the CIM motors depicted on Fezzik (which may not even have been present on the real robot, so this is merely a hypothetical situation). Is it legal to mount
spare items on different configurations, anticipating that only one configuration (which satisfies all rules on its own) will be used at a time, but exceeding the parts usage limit for a single robot when all configurations are considered together? For example, you have 6 CIM motors; initially, you mount 4 for inspection, and leave 2 aside. Later, you mount 4 to Fezzik and 2 to Speed Racer. Is it valid to store your spare parts attached to unused configurations in this manner?
In the past, I've argued that this is a stretch of the rules, but not necessarily a violation, and not definitively an unfair situation. Especially given the 2008 definition of a robot (which describes it in terms of its use during a match), it seems that what you do with your robot in the pits is your business, as long as it's legal when it plays. (That's consistent with the idea that it is, of course, practically impossible for a team to be in continual compliance with the robot rules while the robot is in the pits being worked on.)
Another similar case would be if they brought in the all of parts for the second configuration, including the extra motors, assembled as a single fabricated upgrade part (weighing less than 25 lb). In this case, I think the rules clearly permit it. This case can be functionally equivalent to the original hypothetical scenario, and is permissible—so if the original scenario is to be disallowed, it seems we must distinguish it somehow. But I can't think of any way (or any reason to do so, for that matter).
The argument against all of this is that it saves the team lots of time, not having to swap motors (or whatever the spares are), when they make a configuration change. I'd call that an advantage of a good design, and verify that the spares (if fabricated) fell within the 25 lb weight allowance, but I don't think that I'd have any reason to disallow it.