[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by squirrel

One thing is kind of obvious from the ruling, though....if you build two robots, you'll only be allowed to enter one of them into the competition.

That a team is only allowed to enter one robot is absolutely clear. However, whenever I read Rule R09 in the past, I really didn't think it was intended to avoid the modular (dual-configuration) robot design we built. My perspective on the intent of Rule R09 was that if a team wants to enter two different robots (i.e. two different constructions that separately meet the size, weight, and other rule constraints) that team needs to enter the tournament twice as two different teams (i.e. pay two registration fees.) In other words, it's not like the US Ski Team sending athletes to the Olympics where multiple skiers enter and compete at the same time, all as part of one team.

Originally Posted by squirrel

Whatever it is that a robot might be in the eyes of the GDC, 1519 built two of them. When I look at the picture of Mach 6 sitting next to Fezzik, I can easily agree with them. ... they (1519) built two robots, and apparently they realize it, sadly a bit late.

Jim, I must confess that I'm a bit puzzled by the last part of the above statement, "apparently they realize it." Is the implication that we agree with the GDC's ruling?

Just for the record, I do fully understand that the GDC sees our solution as being two robots, rather than one. I also think I understand how they can reasonably arrive at that perspective apart from the rules -- just look at the photo -- it sure looks like two robots!

However, I still believe that we have built a valid dual-configuration robot, that does indeed look like two robots. Much of the reason that it looks like two robots is that the some of the fundamental requirements of an effective hurdling capability (strong, stable, and heavy to lift a 7-pound, 40-inch ball) and an effective lap-running capability (small and light) are radically opposed to one another. I do not agree with the GDC ruling on the matter, but in the spirit of gracious professionalism and the fact that the GDC are the official rule-interpreters, we're not going to further contest their decision. (It doesn't matter for us at this point anyway, as our FRC 2008 season is completed, since we've attended the one and only official FRC tournament we are registered for this year.)

That said, I'm still prickling at the last paragraph of the official GDC response, as we were by no means attempting to cheat by lawyering interpretations or finding a loophole. Rather, we were trying to come up with an approach to constructing a design that allowed us to have the choice of either effective hurdling or effective lap-running on a match-by-match basis. (We would have preferred to have one configuration that could do both, but one of the essential aspects of the effective lap-running of the Speed Racer is that it be very narrow in order to drive through gaps that a full-size robot couldn't dream of negotiating.)

My silence on the matter since the GDC ruling is not because I agree with their perspective on our "lawyering interpretations" but because I thought it best to be slow to speak when I might be tempted to become angry by what appeared to be an implied accusation of intentional cheating.

We were by no means trying to cheat the system and field "two robots" as one robot. We made major tradeoffs in the last week in order to have the dual-configuration robot make weight. In the last weekend we needed to re-design the frame of Speed Racer to accommodate design changes in the electronics board as well as further reduce weight involving taking out over a quarter of the frame members. (Yes, the frame of Speed Racer was completely taken apart and rebuilt the weekend prior to ship.) Nearly every component on the electronics board was placed in a position that was less desirable for one of the configurations because of requirements for the other configuration. Our bumpers were built and re-built numerous times in order to have the shared bumper between configurations as well as make the 15.0 pound aggregate bumper weight limit. Our software and operator interface required compromises in order to support both configurations that would not have been required for either configuration for two separate robots. In short, there was hardly a single part of either robot configuration that was not in some way affected by the dual-configuration approach.

We worked very hard to make one robot which could fulfill two wildly different sets of operational requirements and satisfy the rules. The GDC response really seems to imply that we just tried to utilize a loophole to easily field two robots as one robot and that we completely lack common sense. To me, that implication is what hurts more than their decision to disallow our design. By no means were we trying to "build and bring two robots that fit the criteria of one robot" -- we really were trying to build and bring one robot that could be deployed in radically different configurations. I think we succeeded in satisfying the rules; the GDC says we didn't and implies (via the last paragraph of their response) that we had mal-intent in trying to do so.

Nonetheless, we respect their decision and will abide by it, even if we don't agree with their decision or the tone of their response.