2014 Orlando Regional

[Moon2020]

Originally Posted by EricH

Most, though not all, rules referencing batteries on the robot refer to the battery, or the one battery, or one battery. (The notable exceptions are the exception for COTS computing devices and the definition of a Custom Circuit.)

The very strong implication is that more than one battery, or battery assembly, is illegal. Now, whether or not a battery (assembly) that is not used to power a robot is actually a robot battery and thus subject to that rule is currently up for debate, or should I say some Q&A/Update clarification.

Active vs. passive, it's still a battery with the potential to leak if damaged. Now there are more than one that could potentially be damaged.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by chris1592

On the other hand, it never says you CAN use more than 1 robot battery.

If it doesn't explicitly say you are allowed to use more than one robot battery in any case (whether for power purposes or not), then it is safe to assume it is not legal.

From what I understand in this situation the multiple batteries on a robot was deemed legal by the inspectors(this may be wrong).

I wouldn't be surprised that next year a rule will be created/changed to include one battery on the robot at any time but until then, this is a very grey area.

[dodar]

R35:

The one ROBOT battery, Anderson Power Products (or APP) Connectors (p/n SB50), the one main 120-amp (120A) circuit breaker (Cooper Bussman P/N: CB185-120), and the one Power Distribution (PD) Board shall be connected as shown in Figure 4-11.

Thats the closest thing I could find towards saying that having multiple batteries be illegal.

[chris1592]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

From what I understand in this situation the multiple batteries on a robot was deemed legal by the inspectors(this may be wrong).

I wouldn't be surprised that next year a rule will be created/changed to include one battery on the robot at any time but until then, this is a very grey area.

To further your second point, I would be highly surprised if there is not a clarification of this in tomorrow's Team Update.

[Moon2020]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

From what I understand in this situation the multiple batteries on a robot was deemed legal by the inspectors(this may be wrong).

I wouldn't be surprised that next year a rule will be created/changed to include one battery on the robot at any time but until then, this is a very grey area.

Legality of components can only be decided by the LRI.

[Duncan Macdonald]

Originally Posted by chris1592

On the other hand, it never says you CAN use more than 1 robot battery.

If it doesn't explicitly say you are allowed to use more than one robot battery in any case (whether for power purposes or not), then it is safe to assume it is not legal.

The manual does not tell you what you can do. That's why in the Q&A system there are a bunch of "We cannot comment on specific designs." responses to "Can we use a 3/8" bolt for an axle?".

[chris1592]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

The manual does not tell you what you can do. That's why in the Q&A system there are a bunch of "We cannot comment on specific designs." responses to "Can we use a 3/8" bolt for an axle?".

I understand.

What I was trying to point out to the person I quoted was that just because it doesn't say an item is legal, that it is legal.

An analogy to what I was referring to:

The manual says nothing about the use of a Globe motor...does that mean it is a legal motor this year? No

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by chris1592

I understand.
An analogy to what I was referring to:
The manual says nothing about the use of a Globe motor...does that mean it is a legal motor this year? No

But R29 covers all motors including globe motors

R29
The only motors and actuators permitted on 2014 FRC ROBOTS include the following

I do understand what you are trying to get at but, a lot of those situations are covered.

[RallyJeff]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

I want to stress the point that there is no rule in the book stating that you may only have 1 battery on your robot. It does however say that you may only have 1 battery power source.

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

[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!

[GearsOfFury]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Also, for all my years in FRC, and my brief stint as inspector and LRI, I don't think I've ever seen any sort of re-inspection form or document. Or any real system for recording this. I've always gone with brief re-inspections and verbal okays from our inspectors before, and everyone's word has always been good enough. If we're going to have to get all bureaucratic about it, I think a lot of inspectors are going to get very annoyed in the coming weeks.

On this year's inspection checklist - which is used as the "official" tracking document at the regionals I've inspected at - there is a section for re-inspection sign-off:

http://www.usfirst.org//sites/defaul...list_Rev-B.pdf

(Reference the "Reinsp" and "Final Insp (initial)" areas). It appears on last year's form, as well:

http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...nChecklist.pdf

I don't know if this section is used religiously, because I've never been an inspector on Saturday afternoon. To me, in general, the official re-inspection should be tracked here, particularly if it's not done by the LRI.

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

I fear we're going to have some experienced people check out from FIRST because they're just tired of dealing with stuff like this.

I felt like this myself after 2009 and 2010, but the last 3 years really brought me back from that ledge.

I also used to be huge into BEST Robotics. It was a good change of pace from FIRST with the limited kit, smaller robots, and games that were a bit more "out there". However, from their first championship event onward I found myself at odds with them more and more, along with the rest of our team. Fields weren't being built to spec, the wireless system had major connection issues, and the build season was stretched all the way into the spring. The whole team was frustrated and felt like we were fighting against BEST the whole time, so we stopped doing BEST.

I've enjoyed FIRST a lot, but let's hope things like this year's problems don't become a pattern. I've seen how that goes.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by chris1592

On the other hand, it never says you CAN use more than 1 robot battery.

If it doesn't explicitly say you are allowed to use more than one robot battery in any case (whether for power purposes or not), then it is safe to assume it is not legal.

This one has been hashed out before. The rules also don't explicitly say you are allowed to use aluminum, but I think everybody agrees that aluminum is allowed.