Minibot Q&A: Welding

[Bochek]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Autogenous welding (i.e. no filler) ought to be allowed (on the theory that if the Q&A doesn't follow from the rule, it's not to be interpreted in a way that would change the meaning of the rule).

I agree, the way the rule is currently, you should be allowed to weld without use of "filler rod" but using any other Legal material as filler would be permitted.

I do believe that the GDC has intended this rule to make it so that you must use fasteners to assemble your mini bots. Personally while I do enjoy the challenge of designing within the GDC's constraints, This minibot thing has gotten a little silly. A number of times in the last few years I had wished the GDC was more clear on the rules, for example, if you don't want us welding, then just say, no, you are not allowed to weld minibots together.

TL;DR: Its starting to become harder to understand the GDC's rules and design constraints, then it is to actually design and build the robots or minibots.

- Bochek

[Andy A.]

Originally Posted by Bochek

TL;DR: Its starting to become harder to understand the GDC's rules and design constraints, then it is to actually design and build the robots or minibots.

- Bochek

The motivations are pretty clear: FIRST wants mini bots constructed of the same materials and similar in appearance to FTC robots. It's been pretty obvious from the start that the winning minibot is one that uses the absolute minimum amount of tetrix components, and every rule change since then has had the effect of increasing that minimum and directing teams towards using tetrix components. For better or worse the mini-bot is primarily about supporting FTC and it's kit, not being a groovy design challenge for FRC teams.

I'm agnostic on the politics of this, but it is pretty disapointing. The creative payoff keeps diminishing while the competitive payoff is the same. The minibot race will likely contribute a consistent 75 points to every game. I suspect that will account for at least half of the total points scored in an average match. This is a giant game element, and the rules have been shifting around a good deal.

I guess it is what it is but I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't such a giant game element and impossible to ignore. I can't help but feel like I started the season really excited to make a mini bot and now I'm just doing it because you really don't have a lot of choice if you want to be competitive. Oh well. Back to the drawing board.

[mott]

I agree completely! This Minibot situation has become a burden that almost none of our team members wants to embrace but our "team" knows we can't ignore.

[Tom Ore]

One thing that may help a bit is to look at it this way:

Initially the minibot rules were not well defined but we had to get started designing. Maybe the clarifications to the rules maybe didnt' help much. Then clarifications and new rules started to conflict with each other forcing teams to ask more questions to get the conflicts sorted out. All the while, the importance of the minibot and end dates didn't change.

This sounds a lot like life in the real world to me - not much fun but we've all learned how to cope when this happens. Maybe there's a lesson for the students in this...

[Numbers]

They're being unnecessarily confusing. Fine, we won't use weldingrod. We can TIG and use bar as the filler rod. Or not use filler rod at all.

They need to be CLEAR with their rules and not contradict themselves. Unless there is some internal conflict or argument about this we're unaware of, there is no point to this.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by mott

I agree completely! This Minibot situation has become a burden that almost none of our team members wants to embrace but our "team" knows we can't ignore.

Exactly what burden is on your team due to the Q&A responses? I'm really curious to know.

Originally Posted by Numbers

They're being unnecessarily confusing. Fine, we won't use weldingrod. We can TIG and use bar as the filler rod. Or not use filler rod at all.

They need to be CLEAR with their rules and not contradict themselves. Unless there is some internal conflict or argument about this we're unaware of, there is no point to this.

Ask and ye shall receive ... it's happened before, and not always to the asking teams' likings.

I agree with Tom here that this situation is much like the real world. A company contracts out a specific task to be fullfilled by a contractor (e.g. make Widget X) yet doesn't even have its head around every nuance Widget X will go through, let alone what all of the individual design specifications for Widget X should be.

Cut the GDC a break. Just because you're afraid of being told "no" to your specific questions about welding doesn't mean you should obscure your questions in such a way that they're ambiguous or not clear in the first place.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Cut the GDC a break. Just because you're afraid of being told "no" to your specific questions about welding doesn't mean you should obscure your questions in such a way that they're ambiguous or not clear in the first place.

With all due respect to the GDC, this is a two sided coin. Welding was only made illegal recently due to the technical wording used in a series of Q&A questions, after it was already declared legal. To say that teams trying to do the same thing are in the wrong is to say that the GDC is just as much in the wrong.

As the rules currently read - as long as bar is used there's no reason welding should be illegal (i.e. the justification for welding being illegal relies on the welding process breaking other rules). I'm surprised the GDC didn't think at least one team would want to weld a minibot; if they wanted to make that illegal why are they using such a convoluted rationale?

[Racer26]

Has everyone forgotten that Q&A is NOT the rules?

Team Updates are the ONLY way the GDC can change the rules of the game.
Q&A is merely for clarification of the INTENT of existing rules.

You can use Q&A to prove to an inspector that a given design DOES meet the GDC's interpretation of the rules, HOWEVER, NOT doing so doesn't mean that you're not following the rules, as written in the 2011 FRC Rule Book.

[EricH]

Q&A is not the rules.

It's worse. It's how the rules will be enforced.

If the Q&A says, No welding because welding rod is not an allowed part, then the inspectors will have to rule that welding rod is not an allowed part, putting the burden of proof on the team to prove that they didn't use welding rod.

[Jimmy K]

As per Update #7, you can now use welding rods, and thus, be able to weld on the minibot!

I'm sure the GDC is doing the best they can to work out all the rules. Let's just hope everything is clear by week 1.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Everyone,
The GDC answers the Q&A based on their game design history and the way they wrote the rules. In almost all cases, the questions are answerable by a strict interpretation of the rules as amended by Team Updates. In those cases where one of our brite and thinking teams comes up with a question that is outside of the rules and the GDC posts an answer, there will likely be a rules change. That will take the form of a Team Update followed by a rules revision. Inspectors will be using the most recent Team Updates for the event in progress when they inspect your robot. If your design was a direct result of a Q&A response, please print it and bring it with you. However, if the GDC makes a change at a later date, and that change countermands your original answer and has taken the form of a Team Update, inspectors will use the Team Update as the most recent ruling.
Please don't ask for a response about a hypothetical case, our inspectors are doing their level best to insure that your team gets to play. We will seek expert advice to render a decision that may not covered by rules, Team Updates or Q&A.

[lonski]

Hello, does anyone know if there is a limit on the aluminum skeet for the minibot? it doesnt say in the manual.