Modifying robot at competition?

[2789_B_Garcia]

Originally Posted by MooreteP

Watching teams engaged in design iteration during the limited window of Thursday practice, then in between Friday and Saturday matches, is like Jazz.

You're absolutely right...and working with Mr. Novak and the Bomb Squad to do this is like sharing a duet with John Coltrane or Miles Davis! They are truly inspiring to work with!

[IKE]

Originally Posted by DanCreed3692

T08

snip....
I want to see what peoples take on this rule is. To me I read this as that each robot has to be presented at initial inspection with all components of each mechanism for any configurations that are planned to be used during the "ENTIRE COMPETITION EVENT".... snip...

Dan,
I cut out a lot of your statement and bolded a couple of areas of concern. You have interjected your opinion and added an assumed "initial" to the actual rules. This happens a lot in life and in FRC competitions. Small assumptions like this can cause a lot of upset feelings.

At the events where I am LRI, I let teams know that they need to be re-inspected before they can compete. The 3 areas I look for are starting inside the frame perimeter, weight, and then overall height. Once I know the height, and that they are legal, they are free to compete, and then I can relay the height to the referees so that they know that the bot is 59.5" instead of 60.5".
We had a lot of such modifications occur at 1 event with a few full field shooter, and then vitrually no additions at a venue that had only 1 full field shooter.
We also had experienced teams making tweaks to their rookie partners to improve infeed of frisbees from the players station, more robust battery hold-downs, and clean-ups of loose wiring.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

I definitely think you should be allowed to add a frisbee blocker. I think it's kinda just sour grapes from teams with full-court shooters to say you can't. The same kind of tacked-on defense could be played against a ground-fed robot- a cardboard snowplow could could hoard all the discs in one end.

[SharonO]

Originally Posted by 2789_B_Garcia

Thanks, Jefferson! ...and just so you know, 2789 is working on version 4 of a blocker, and we will hopefully be unveiling it this week at Alamo...this mod is specifically based on something we noticed about 1986 at Lubbock, so if we run into them at champs, we will hopefully give them a pretty good headache

I am willing to bet there are a few teams competing in Oklahoma this weekend that would love to know your planned strategy for shutting down 1986. I know we would have used that knowledge in KC a few weeks ago to turn the outcome of just one semi-final game.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Flak-Bait

I definitely think you should be allowed to add a frisbee blocker. I think it's kinda just sour grapes from teams with full-court shooters to say you can't. The same kind of tacked-on defense could be played against a ground-fed robot- a cardboard snowplow could could hoard all the discs in one end.

Realize that this could pull at lot of G24 fouls, though. Hoarding to one end is by definition "herding" rather than "bulldozing".


As to the OP, this is not a case in which interpretations are valid. The question isn't open to interpretation: your contention that T10, T11 and robot-rule compliant additional are illegal is simply false.

[FrankJ]

There is a discussion in the Peachtree thread from about 70 on about this very thing. One of the robots got modified during a finals timeout. Upshot of this is a re inspection can be as simple as grabbing an inspector an showing him what you are doing. It is up to the inspector to decide the level of reinspection required.

Anything that is part of the robot at the beginning of the competition is supposed to be inspected. The advantage of presenting mechanisms not installed but may be at the initial inspection is you can take them on & of at will without having the robot reinspected. If the robot changes appearance substantially, you might want to let the Referees know that the mechanisms were inspected though.

If you recall the minibots in logomotion went from all sorts to 1-2 designs in less that a week. Of course they were not required to be bagged.

[SteveE]

The 3 areas I look for are starting inside the frame perimeter, weight, and then overall height. Once I know the height, and that they are legal, they are free to compete, and then I can relay the height to the referees so that they know that the bot is 59.5" instead of 60.5".

The height limit is actually 84 inches, even at the beginning. You just can't go out of your auto zone if it is above 60.

[trilogy2826]

Originally Posted by SteveE

The height limit is actually 84 inches, even at the beginning. You just can't cross center field if it is above 60.

Correction: You cannot leave your Auto Zone if the robot is over 60" tall

[Richard Wallace]

IKE did a great job covering this topic from the LRI's point of view in an earlier post.

One additional consideration that should not be missed is:

"R05 The ROBOT weight may not exceed 120 lbs. When determining weight, the basic ROBOT structure and all elements of all additional MECHANISMS that might be used in different configurations of the ROBOT shall be weighed together." (emphasis mine)

Reading the above together with the provision of T08 (quoted by the OP) "during the entire competition event," I interpret the combination of rules to mean that ALL mechanisms included on the robot at any time during the event should be weighed together when the robot is presented for inspection, and that this should be required when/if any new mechanisms are added.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

IKE did a great job covering this topic from the LRI's point of view in an earlier post.

snip

Reading the above together with the provision of T08 (quoted by the OP) "during the entire competition event," I interpret the combination of rules to mean that ALL mechanisms included on the robot at any time during the event should be weighed together when the robot is presented for inspection, and that this should be required when/if any new mechanisms are added.

An interesting point. For hypothetical, You have a 120 lb robot. During the competition you couldn't pull your 30 lb climber to put on you 10 lb blocker (fabbed during competition) because the total weight would be 130lbs? IE during reinspection the removed climber should be included as part of the robot.

Replacing damaged parts one for one is a different discussion.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by 2789_B_Garcia

Thanks, Jefferson! ...and just so you know, 2789 is working on version 4 of a blocker, and we will hopefully be unveiling it this week at Alamo...this mod is specifically based on something we noticed about 1986 at Lubbock, so if we run into them at champs, we will hopefully give them a pretty good headache

Originally Posted by SharonO

I am willing to bet there are a few teams competing in Oklahoma this weekend that would love to know your planned strategy for shutting down 1986. I know we would have used that knowledge in KC a few weeks ago to turn the outcome of just one semi-final game.

We'll have to keep an eye on Alamo. Hopefully our neighbors (1987) will take a little video for us to review. All short shooters are susceptible to similar defensive strategies, even more so if they have a limited number of sweet spots to shoot from. Our drivers are training for this. Maybe Oklahoma will help us sharpen those defense evasion skills.

[Donut]

I'll give a little bit of the background here, since our team was responsible for 2 of the times that this happened at Wisconsin this weekend (including against 3692, 4212, and 3734 in the quarterfinals).

As noted with this picture, we played qualification match 65 against team 4212 and knew we were going to get smoked if we didn't stop their full court shooter. 71 and 167 helped 3734 add an 84" blocker to their robot before that match and got it re-inspected. I wasn't there in person but I heard there was a lengthy discussion as to the legality of the mechanism, and many of the robot inspectors at the event got involved in the inspection process. It was initially ruled legal but that any modification like this would have to be permanent (i.e. 3734 couldn't remove the blocker in future matches), but this was corrected sometime later and the blocker was ruled as a reconfigurable mechanism.

When we got picked by the #8 alliance and knew we were facing 4212 again we opted to do the same thing, this time adding an 84" blocker to 1781. Less weight to work with and some drivetrain issues meant it didn't work out as well as Friday's blocker did but it was still our best shot at advancing in eliminations since we knew we didn't have the firepower to outscore 4212.

In both cases the robots that had blockers added to them were under the weight limit and within the height rules with the mechanism added. I believe neither one had to remove any components to stay within the weight restrictions which makes the blockers reconfigurable mechanisms that could be added/removed at will.

I see the potential rub in the interpretation of "during the entire competition event", but if this was taken to literally mean no changes after initial inspection then a team could not make any repairs or improvements once they pass inspection. If you had a broken shooter Friday morning, you would just have to live with your broken shooter the rest of competition. Similarly if something failed that could not be replaced like for like (say a weld on a frame) then the team would have to remain broken the remainder of the event. This is obviously not how FIRST has ruled in the past (how many times have you seen teams "get things working" Saturday morning?), and I hope they won't ever rule this way or we might see a mass defection to the SECOND Robotics Competition.

In the 2 cases we were involved in the robots in question could pass inspection with or without the blocker mechanism attached. Here's something I'm less sure of; if the robots in question had to remove something in order to have enough weight for the blocker (say a broken shooter), are they violating R05 since weight is determined for all mechanisms on the robot in all possible configurations? Are they okay if they never use that part again (a "permanent" change)? What determines when mechanisms are considered reconfigurable and thus R05 matters?

R05

The ROBOT weight may not exceed 120 lbs. When determining weight, the basic ROBOT structure and all elements of all additional MECHANISMS that might be used in different configurations of the ROBOT shall be weighed together.

[DELurker]

The simple answer to the OP is that no event has ever been judged the way that you are looking for. It would defeat the spirit of teams cooperating in the pits to improve their robots.

Yes, T08 is in opposition to T10 and T11 if you read them straight without any background or interpretation. However, T08 appears to be intended for robots that arrived as multiple-configuration robots. In essence, it penalizes them with the weight penalty. Anything actually constructed at the event is legal in install as long as you pass a re-inspection.

Basically, it boils down to how to differentiate between a team who arrives with a inadvertently unusable robot (strategically useless, for instance) and a team who improves a functional robot.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Donut

In the 2 cases we were involved in the robots in question could pass inspection with or without the blocker mechanism attached. Here's something I'm less sure of; if the robots in question had to remove something in order to have enough weight for the blocker (say a broken shooter), are they violating R05 since weight is determined for all mechanisms on the robot in all possible configurations? Are they okay if they never use that part again (a "permanent" change)? What determines when mechanisms are considered reconfigurable and thus R05 matters?

Interesting line of questioning. I know in KC we went by the inspector station when making our pick list to check on robot weights. Anybody who didn't have enough weight left to add a blocker without removing something was scrutinized. I do know of at least 1 robot that was listed at 120 lbs that added a pool noodle blocker for elims. I'm not sure if the 120 was incorrectly listed in the inspector station, or if they removed something to add the blocker.

[DanCreed3692]

Originally Posted by IKE

Dan,
I cut out a lot of your statement and bolded a couple of areas of concern. You have interjected your opinion and added an assumed "initial" to the actual rules. This happens a lot in life and in FRC competitions. Small assumptions like this can cause a lot of upset feelings.

I'm not trying to create hurt feelings.. and I didn't assume the inital versus actual rules.. I pointed this out.. the same rules states that these mechanisms etc.. must be inspected etc.. "for the entire competition event"... Does that not imply from start to finish e.g.. from first inspection to the closing ceremonies?

Everyone in this thread has a valid point... I think one other person hit the key issue in that some of the rules are conflicting with each other..

I see both points of the argument... in that it's cool to see teams get creative and to respond to a powerful robot and figure out a way to combat it once the competition has begun. I also however see the argument for the rule of T08... and the thought that then they should modify their existing mechanisms to defend the robot, not build a completely new mechanism to defeat the robot.. (and the argument they should have thought about that style of play BEFORE the regional)..

Like I said I see both sides, and arguments... I just wanted to see what others opinions are..