Would Speed Racer be legal this year?

[GaryVoshol]

Many of you probably don't remember 1519's Speed Racer from (*Breakaway*) Overdrive. They essentially had 2 configurations, one small and light, the other tall and heavier (and somewhat flimsy). Combined, they weighed less than 120 pounds. They would take the "guts" out of one configuration and put it into the other depending on what they wanted to do that match: speed around the track or toss the trackball. It was ruled that the two configurations were two separate robots, not one robot with two large and rather unconventional attachments.

So with this year's definition in the Glossary:

ROBOT: an electromechanical assembly built by an FRC Team to perform specific tasks when competing
in AERIAL ASSIST. It includes all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game: power,
communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The implementation must obviously follow a design
approach intended to play AERIAL ASSIST (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD or a ROBOT
designed to play a different game would not satisfy this definition).

Would Speed Racer be legal?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Many of you probably don't remember 1519's Speed Racer from Breakaway.

I think you might mean Overdrive, Gary.

Otherwise I have not comment.

[BrendanB]

Oh boy this keeps living on!

Speedracer4eva!

[cgmv123]

The configurations were considered by the team to be attachments. Their electrical board was considered to be the robot. An electrical board does not have locomotion or actuation capabilities.

Someone who knows more might be able to provide more context, but it seems like that definition was specifically in response to 1519's robot(s) from that year.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

The configurations were considered by the team to be attachments. Their electrical board was considered to be the robot. An electrical board does not have locomotion or actuation capabilities.

Someone who knows more might be able to provide more context, but it seems like that definition was specifically in response to 1519's robot(s) from that year.

I think you're right. The parts that they were moving from one chassis to the other wouldn't qualify as a "ROBOT".

I know there was finally a definition of a ROBOT put into the rules following Overdrive. I congratulated Ken S - not too many teams get their own rule. The fact that FLL had a definition for at least 5 years prior to that ...

[cmrnpizzo14]

This seems too complex for CD to answer. Your best bet if you really want to know is Q&A but you will probably get something along the lines of "We cannot rule on specific designs."

Sounds like a neat idea, but what would your 2 configurations be? One for the high goal and one for the low goal? One that is smaller for quick passing and a goalie?

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

So with this year's definition in the Glossary:
<snip>
Would Speed Racer be legal?

No, I don't think so. "R1519" appeared in 2009 presumably in response to Speed Racer, and the text has remained essentially the same since.

Originally Posted by 2009 FRC Manual

ROBOT - A FIRST ROBOT is a remotely operated vehicle designed and built by a FIRST Robotic
Competition team to perform specific tasks when competing in the 2009 competition “Lunacy.” The
ROBOT must include all the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game – power,
communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The ROBOT implementation must obviously follow a
design approach intended to play the 2009 FRC game (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the
field, or a ROBOT designed to play a different game, would not satisfy this definition).