View Single Post
  #66   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-03-2008, 00:44
StevenB StevenB is offline
is having FRC withdrawal symptoms.
AKA: Steven Bell
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: May 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 416
StevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Disclaimer: I, like many members of Team #1519, come from an FLL background, where there is a very clear definition of the robot, and switching out large attachments is common.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol View Post
Jim, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the GDC can decide that this looks like 2 robots and therefore it is.
I think some would argue that, at the least, the GDC needs to define what a robot is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik View Post
As to the R114 reference, I don't really see how Fezzik and Speed Racer aren't mechanisms. They both provide specific functionality. Is the GDC claiming that if you have a module that does more than one thing, that it's illegal? While I know previous years rules don't apply, I know I've seen modules more complicated than a single motor used before. 57's even done so. And again, they just refer back to mechanisms ON THE ROBOT without bothering to define what a robot is.

And finally, as to their reasoning with R12 and "basic ROBOT structure"... I think a casual reading of the example given gives the impression that the drive train plus manipulators solution was the solution of that particular team. I mean, it says right there that that was how they decided to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BHS_STopping View Post
I think that what may be a problem for the GDC, in this case, is that it is pretty difficult to create a clear-cut definition of a "robot" without being incredibly intricate or complicated. As we have seen many machines in competition, each robot holds its own unique, qualitative characteristics. Even though the GDC has not yet established a comprehensive definition of a "robot," it appears to me that currently, a robot must consist of any and all required components specified in the rulebook. As was stated before, a cardboard box with a robot controller, a flag holder, and a few other items could be considered a robot. In practice, however, "common sense" would dictate that such a thing really isn't a robot. Such a thing, however, is legal, although I severely doubt it would pass inspection in such a state.
Here's where I see the problem with the GDC's ruling. Suppose some team builds one drive base with two arm configurations - basically the example given in the rules. The team is not expected to put both configurations on the robot at once, or for that to even be possible (see <R12>) This would be legal, although the robot might look very different from round to round. To an observer, this might look like two robots.

Now suppose a team builds one arm and two drive bases, one a strong pusher and the other a mecanum drive. There is no one main frame that could be called "the robot". Does that make this two robots, or is each drive base simply a mechanism that provides specific functionality (locomotion, in this case)? Is the team swapping bases on their robot, or swapping their arm onto different robots? Without a definition of robot other than "anything that passes inspection", it's impossible to say.
__________________
Need a physics refresher? Want to know if that motor is big enough for your arm? A FIRST Encounter with Physics

2005-2007: Student | Team #1519, Mechanical Mayhem | Milford, NH
2008-2011: Mentor | Team #2359, RoboLobos | Edmond, OK
2014-??: Mentor | Looking for a team...

Last edited by StevenB : 04-03-2008 at 01:09.
Reply With Quote