Actually a FIRST robot is defined in the rules in section 8.1.1 of the manual
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FIRST Manual
A FIRST robot is a remotely operated vehicle designed and built by a FIRST Robotic Competition team
to perform specific tasks when competing in the 2008 competition “FIRST Overdrive.”
|
So a robot must be:
1. Designed and built by a FRC team (true for both configurations)
2. Remotely Operated (As team 1519 had 1 electronics board, I would contend that they only had one object that could be properly described as remotely operated at any given time)
3. Be designed to perform specific tasks (check)
This definition would tend to support the "brains constitute a robot" theory as the RC, main battery and associated distribution (main breaker, rockwell block and breaker panel), backup battery and radio would be the minimum necessary to be remotely operated and still comply with all other specifications in the rules.
I also would like to disagree with Squirrel's "if it looks like a robot" theory. If we limit it to FIRST robots, I have never seen a FIRST robot without wheels, treads or another method of moving the robot base. However, I could see a robot being designed for, say, the 2006 game, that would be designed to complete specific tasks without the need for the base to move. To me it would not look like a robot, but it would meet all specifications outlined in the rules and should be allowed to compete. If we move outside the realm of FIRST things get far more interesting. Does
this thing look like a robot? How about
this? To me that first one looks like a sculpture and the second one looks like a car; however, both of these things are actually robots.
I feel this rule definitely needs to be reviewed and dealt with more thoroughly as I can find nothing in the current rules to rule against the following scenario:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scenario
Redateam begins the competition season by brainstorming ideas regarding this years challenge. They cannot choose between two excellent ideas and decide that their resources will allow them to pursue both. They design the robots such that the same electronics board (including a mount for the battery) can be used on both. As build season raps up they still cannot decide which machine is better suited to the task. In a stroke of genius Redateam removes the electronics board from Redabot2 and jams Redabot1 and an electronic-less Redabot2 into their crate for shipping to the Magnolia Regional.
Between ship and the Magnolia regional, Redateam decides they will go with Redabot1. They arrive at the regional, unpack their crate and proceed to have Redabot1 inspected. It weighs in at 119.5 lbs and passes all inspection criteria. They begin participating in practice matches and decide to reverse their decision and use Redabot2.
Redateam returns to their pit and begins by unbolting their electronics board from Redabot1. They then attach it to Redabot2. As they have modified their robot they ask for and receive a complete reinspection of their robot. It is inspected by a different inspector than the first. Finding Redabot2 to be in compliance with all robot rules, the inspector clears it for play.
As Redabot2 as shipped was not a remotely operated vehicle, it would not qualify as a robot under the 2008 manual. Thus, Redateam did not at any time possess 2 robots at the regional.
|
If you feel that you have justification for the above scenario being illegal, what about if they only shipped the manipulator of Redabot2 and swapped it onto Redabot1? What if they fabricated a new manipulator at competition and placed it on Redabot1? What if they fabricated a new drive base and manipulator and placed the electronics from Redabot1 onto it? I do not see any rules that
clearly demonstrate to me that any of these scenarios is either legal or illegal. In this event I believe that the team must be given the benefit of the doubt and that their configuration must be allowed.
This scenario is slightly different than 1519's as Redateam would have to have their robot reinspected each time they wished to change configurations, but I think it is actually much farther from the spirit of the rules than 1519's situation.