Can we use a gopro helmet camera?

[farmersvilleRob]

Sounds like a judges question. Do it. Ask questions later

[brysonhicks]

Originally Posted by farmersvilleRob

Sounds like a judges question. Do it. Ask questions later

I like your thinking... That does seem like the best option though.

[farmersvilleRob]

Just make sure when you put them off that it won't take an hour to take off and that it's not crucial to anything. Also I wouldn't point out the Q and A I posted lol. Just do it.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by farmersvilleRob

Sounds like a judges question. Do it. Ask questions later

What would the judges have to do with it?

[bduddy]

I guess the GDC answer above says otherwise, but I gathered by some of the rules that a camera not used during the match could be considered a "non-functional decoration" and thus exempt from the cost and transmission rules. Specifically...

[R05]

Any non-functional decorations included on the Robot must not affect the outcome of the match and must be in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism.

I would think a GoPro camera intended for PR only would fall within this rule.

[R67]

Any decorations that involve broadcasting a signal to/from the Robot, such as remote cameras, must be approved by FIRST (via e-mail to frcteams@usfirst.org) prior to the event and tested for communications interference at the venue. Such devices, if reviewed and approved, are excluded from Rule [R55].

Thus, it is possible to have a "decoration" that broadcasts a signal. And it is allowed to broadcast...

[R55]

One D-Link DAP-1522 is the only permitted device for communicating to and from the Robot during the match. All signals must originate from the Operator Console and be transmitted to the Robot via the official Arena hardware. No other form of wireless communications shall be used to communicate to, from or within the Robot (e.g. radio modems from previous FIRST competitions and Bluetooth devices are not permitted on the Robot during competition).

And...

[R13]

The total cost of all non-KOP items shall not exceed $3,500.00 USD. All costs are to be determined as explained in Section 4.1.3: Budget Constraints.



The following items are excluded from the total cost calculation:

items listed on any KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed in the most recent checklist),
items obtained via a Product Donation Voucher included in the KOP,
items ever distributed to the team via FIRST Choice,
any non-functional decorations,
individual fasteners, adhesives, or lubricants that are less than $1.00 each,
spare parts, and
parts of the Operator Console.

...exempt from cost rules.

I guess the GDC thinks otherwise, though...

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

What would the judges have to do with it?

For those that don't understand this (rookie teams/students), there are 4 distinct groups of official competition people that will be evaluating either your team or your robot.

Judges: Blue polo shirts; they evaluate your team/robot for awards.
Safety Judges: Green polo shirts; they evaluate both for safety (and the safety awards).

Neither type of judge can make any call regarding legality. If one does, see the nearest inspector to double-check. (If the inspector says you're legal, and the judge still says you're illegal, call the LRI over.)

Refs: Striped shirts; they see whether you are following the rules on the field. This is one of the groups that could possibly determine that a camera is illegal; however, that call would depend on use in the competition and be confirmed by the inspectors. Refs only call game and tournament rules; some of the game and tournament rules involve passing inspection and showing up with a legal robot.

Inspectors: Standard volunteer shirt (other than the LRI's vest) and armed with clipboards. These guys are the ones that make sure your robot is legal to compete. These guys also love to see you early on Thursday morning so they can get you passing inspection faster. They make the call on robot rules.

This particular question is going to be an inspector's call, assuming the GDC doesn't weigh in soon (via Q&A--which hasn't been asked yet). (And then... the inspectors get to help enforce the GDC ruling.) Failure to point them to a ruling, whether in your favor or not, is not going to make the inspectors' job easier, or their ruling necessarily correct.



The biggest question, as pointed out earlier, is whether a camera that is not connected to the robot's power system and does not transmit wirelessly is considered to be a computing device, or a non-functional decoration (NFD), or both. If it's an NFD, cost does not apply ([R13]), but power ([R36]) and weight ([R03]) do, barring exceptions that aren't currently clear, obvious, or otherwise spelled out so a reasonably astute observer can find them. If it's a computing device, cost and weight apply, but power does not. It's an interesting question.

As the rules stand right now, barring a Q&A response or Team Update to the contrary, I would call a camera of this type a NFD, which makes it subject to the power rules, and therefore illegal. However, if it is also considered to be a computing device (by the GDC), then it is an NFD computing device, which can utilize its own power source and still be exempted from cost rules, making it legal.

Note: I am not on the GDC, not familiar with their intent, and not official in any way, shape, or form. Hence my calling this both ways--call it playing GDC advocate and PR advocate at the same time.

If I could use precedent here, I'd say legal due to similar setups--but I could just as easily say that it would have to get power from the robot under a different set of conditions. Again, very interesting and challenging question.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by farmersvilleRob

Sounds like a judges question. Do it. Ask questions later

Originally Posted by farmersvilleRob

Just make sure when you put them off that it won't take an hour to take off and that it's not crucial to anything. Also I wouldn't point out the Q and A I posted lol. Just do it.

These responses bother me. The GDC has made a ruling (albiet only towards the cost accounting).

While I agree that you should do it. I would also point it out directly to the inspector and give him a copy of the GDC ruling as well as a cost accounting of the device on the BoM.

We're here to show Gracious Professionalism. As a professional I would not try and knowingly 'hide' something that may not fit the specs (FIRST rules) I have been given.

JM(NS)HO.

P.S. I love this idea and may try it get it through inspection (pointed out as above) at GSR.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Everyone,
Cameras used to record Point of View (POV) seem to fit best under non-functional decorations except for the those that have an integral battery. An inspector will evaluate the camera at every event under the safety guidelines and all other robot rules. There are a few guidelines we use when checking all cameras at all events prior to authorizing their use.
1. If the camera derives power from the robot battery, all electrical rules must be followed. (wire gauge, breakers, insulation, etc.)
2. If the camera contains a battery, and it is of a type that could cause fire or chemical spills if damaged during a match, it must be sufficiently protected.
3. The camera, it's battery and lens must be mounted securely to the robot frame in such a way that it will not become detached and/or pose a hazard to participants. Wire ties do not constitute a secure attachment.
4. The robot must be weighed and sized with the camera and accessories in place.
5. The camera will be required to go through inspection at each event in which the robot is entered and the camera is used.
6. It is understood that such a camera is merely to record POV video and will not be used for any reason other than entertainment purposes.
7. In all cases, if the camera is capable of transmitting wirelessly, even if not enabled, you need to show proof that it was pre-approved by FIRST Engineering. See R67, and it will need to be checked for interference at each event.
Be sure to check the entire manual for any rule that may apply in addition to the robot rules.
To answer another question, a camera will not be considered a computing device regardless of the type of media used to record video and/or audio. Those with integral batteries will inspected on a case by case basis at every event.

[brysonhicks]

Ok, a few details about the go pro camera:
-It costs about $200
-It is not capable of transmitting wirelessly unless you buy a separate accessory that is not available yet.
-It does have a internal lithium ion battery.
-The battery and camera are protected with a heavy duty case. (Made to be a rugged helmet camera.) The only way the battery or camera could cause damage was if this was in a robot wars competition and it got cut in half.
-It will be attached securely.

Cost and weight wise it should not affect our team.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by brysonhicks

-The battery and camera are protected with a heavy duty case. (Made to be a rugged helmet camera.) The only way the battery or camera could cause damage was if this was in a robot wars competition and it got cut in half.

That is yet to be determined. Your definition of not causing or receiving damage is bound to be different than an inspector. We are looking for things based on our experience and collectively we have seen an things that would curl your hair.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

<SNIP> ... and collectively we have seen an things that would curl your hair.

... Of that I have no doubt.

People, remember that the inspectors are trying to get your robot onto the field ... safely.

Argue your positions quietly and calmly. If you still disagree ask for the LRI. Be prepared to modify your robot should the LRI disagree with you.

This is supposed to be a fun, inspirational and enjoyable event.

[farmersvilleRob]

And if he does disagree: go behind his back and lawyer up for later.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by farmersvilleRob

And if he does disagree: go behind his back and lawyer up for later.

NO. You do not do this.

If you don't like an inspector's decision, call the LRI over. If you don't like the LRI's decision, then you just have to deal with it. The only way to change it is to convince either the LRI or the FTA to call HQ. And you're only going to be able to do that if you can raise reasonable doubt in either of their minds.

If you take an illegal robot onto the field, the refs can call you for it; it's worth a red card.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by farmersvilleRob

And if he does disagree: go behind his back and lawyer up for later.

I didn't know the rules were legally binding.

[brysonhicks]

Originally Posted by EricH

NO. You do not do this.

If you don't like an inspector's decision, call the LRI over. If you don't like the LRI's decision, then you just have to deal with it. The only way to change it is to convince either the LRI or the FTA to call HQ. And you're only going to be able to do that if you can raise reasonable doubt in either of their minds.

If you take an illegal robot onto the field, the refs can call you for it; it's worth a red card.

If the inspectors dont agree, them I will explain my point, if they still dont, then I will take it off. This isnt that big of a deal. I agree that "This is supposed to be a fun, inspirational and enjoyable event." I dont want to make a big deal out of a little camera that is not crucial.