2014 Orlando Regional

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by RallyJeff

I wonder whether R8 is relevant to the idea of using lead-acid batteries as counterweights or ballast. Is battery acid a hazardous material?

If you make the argument that lead acid batteries are hazardous material and shouldn't be used on robots that may take hard hits, then we shouldn't be allowed to use them at all. It's definitely against FIRST's safety principles to say "yeah it's hazardous and unsafe, but a little bit is OK, just this once."

I'd buy it if the mounting solution was considered unsafe, but that's not related to how many batteries are on the robot.

Given that it's an ambiguity in the rules (It COULD be legal...but it also could not be, depending on how you read it), I think it's perfectly fair for the LRI to make his interpretation that extra batteries of the same kind as the main robot battery are illegal. What bothers me is that it seems that 1902 was given a signoff/pass by an inspector (maybe not the LRI) that it was OK. Lacking a formal re-inspection process and documentation, that should qualify as a passed inspection. If the LRI disagrees and wants to make them change it after it is brought up, that is also fine. But a T6 shouldn't be given to a robot that had passed inspection, regardless of if the LRI thinks it should or shouldn't have.

In my opinion, the entire thing gets hung up on what is or is not an "inspection", what process the teams and inspectors are supposed to go through to get re-inspected, and ensuring that both the team and the inspectors involved are on the same page as to what is being agreed upon.

[RallyJeff]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

If you make the argument that lead acid batteries are hazardous material and shouldn't be used on robots that may take hard hits, then we shouldn't be allowed to use them at all. It's definitely against FIRST's safety principles to say "yeah it's hazardous and unsafe, but a little bit is OK, just this once."

If robots didn't have batteries at all, none of them would be taking hard hits (...or soft hits... or be moving at all).

Safety is a matter of risk. It's also a matter of balancing that risk vs. need. One battery to power the robot is a requirement (both by the rules and the physical requirements of a working robot); an extra battery doing the same job that a block of metal could do is not. That risk vs. need balance is very different for the first battery than it is for the second.

Anyhow, you're speaking more to perceived intent behind the rules than the actual rules as written. What do they actually say? In any other context, if a team showed up at inspection with a sealed canister of corrosive fluid on their robot (one that wasn't somehow required, that is), would it pass inspection?

[Kelly180]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

In my opinion, the entire thing gets hung up on what is or is not an "inspection", what process the teams and inspectors are supposed to go through to get re-inspected, and ensuring that both the team and the inspectors involved are on the same page as to what is being agreed upon.

I think it boils down to this. From the chatter at the regional, because it wasn't clear if that configuration was allowed, and they had to call FIRST HQ to find out. (of course this is all hearsay). But this was done AFTER the two matches were played and then the DQ'ed happened.

This was a terrible situation that happened, and I'm hoping that the rules will be a lot more clear about what's allowed and what's not allowed when it comes down to final matches and configurations.

I want to thank the volunteers for their time and effort and it isn't easy having to judge so many matches. I personally know one of them, and can say that he is a wonderful teacher (ret.). All because of him, I got introduced to FIRST and my life has changed since then. Thanks Tom Higgins!