Rule <R06>

[Jack]

In intresting new rule poped out when i was browsing through the manual.

The the robot manual, look at <R06>

You will notice how it says that all possible components of the robot must be weighed in and be under the 130lbs limit.

Now, let's say we looked at 111 from last year. The rules say "A team has decided to design its robot such that, before any given match, it may quickly change the configuration of the robot based on perceived strengths or weaknesses of an opponent team's robot." Now, the changeable(sp?) wings they had last year did not configure the robot differently. Therefore, only one pair of wings would have to be counted in the weigh in using this years rules? correct?

Just found this as something way new and wanted to point it out.

Jack

[gsensel]

As I understand it, and I think some one might have answered it already. Both wings can be used as long as the total of all part is under 130 lbs part may be removed before a match.

[Trinora]

Originally Posted by Jack

In intresting new rule poped out when i was browsing through the manual.

The the robot manual, look at <R06>

You will notice how it says that all possible components of the robot must be weighed in and be under the 130lbs limit.

Now, let's say we looked at 111 from last year. The rules say "A team has decided to design its robot such that, before any given match, it may quickly change the configuration of the robot based on perceived strengths or weaknesses of an opponent team's robot." Now, the changeable(sp?) wings they had last year did not configure the robot differently. Therefore, only one pair of wings would have to be counted in the weigh in using this years rules? correct?

Just found this as something way new and wanted to point it out.

Jack

If you change something, you do re-configure, even if it is a small amount or different type. For this, they you two types of ball grippers, which is similar to the idea of changable wings.

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by Jack

Therefore, only one pair of wings would have to be counted in the weigh in using this years rules? correct?

Jack

No, I think that if 111 had 2 or 3 sets of wings that could be used on the robot during the competition, for whatever reason, they would all be weighed at the same time.

[Jeff Waegelin]

I believe this rule has come under question in previous years. Before, the rule has always been that any possible configuration must be weighed-in and inspected before you can use it on the field. If you had interchangeable mechanisms, those would each be weighed in on the robot as they would be set up in competition i.e. if you have 3 different arms on your robot, you have to weigh it in with arm 1, arm 2, and arm 3 separately.

Now, let's look at the rule:

<R06> The maximum allowed weight of all robot configuration components combined is 130.0 pounds (58.97
kg). At the time of weigh in, the basic robot platform and any additional items that might be used in
different configurations of the robot must be weighed together. Weight limit includes (one) 12V battery,
control system, decorations, bumpers, and any other attached parts.

So... this year's rule seems like it may be different. From this wording, it appears that all interchangeable mechanisms must be weighed all at once. Meaning... you can't have 3 different swappable mechanisms that each bring the robot up to 130 lbs. You can have removable end effectors, but they must all together weigh no more than 130 lbs.

Now, taking the example of Wildstang's wings from last year, those would be considered spare parts, as they were identical to the wings used. Thus, I believe they would not need to be weighed, so long as they were just identical spares, and not modified versions.

[Raul]

We (111) did have a different set of wings that we rarely used. So, those would not be considered spares and would not be eligible per this year's rules.

[Chris Fultz]

I agree with Rauls intpretation. If it is an optional configuration, it has to be weighed in. Spare parts would not if they were identical.

This probably avoids the issue of a team having an "optional configuration" that might end up as "all inclusive".

This new rule will force a team to select a configuration and go. It would be really tough to have two configurations that could stay under 130#.

[KenWittlief]

Im looking at the rules from last year, and it says:

M5 at the time of robot inspection,you must present ALL mechanisms that you will use on the robot during the entire competition event... Only mechanisms that were present during the inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured...

I took that to mean all mechanisms must be presented "on the robot" - in previous years they spelled it out more explicity - last year this could be taken two ways

From what Raul said a few posts up, it sounds like they had their robot inspected with different attachments added OR removed - was it clear to the judges that this is what you were doing?

On our bot last year we had 4 wheel drive and we also had castors for the front if we wanted to take the front wheels off - we had it inspected with the 4 wheels AND the castors on at the same time, but when we played each match we were free to attach the front wheels OR the castors - this sounds like what is required this year

maybe I was mistaken about last years rules? either way, its clear for this year - everything you use must be on the robot at the same time for the whole inspection process - then if you choose, you can leave things off or put them back on.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Im looking at the rules from last year, and it says:

M5 at the time of robot inspection,you must present ALL mechanisms that you will use on the robot during the entire competition event... Only mechanisms that were present during the inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured...

I don't want to spend too much time rehashing last year's rules, but if you look at the inspection checklist, it states that when weighing the robot, it must be < 130 lbs in the "heaviest configuration."

As for this year, I'm a little curious as to why they changed this rule. Did they suspect that people weren't being honest, and were actually competing overweight? Hopefully not, as a good percentage of the rules rely on teams being honest. It's been mentioned before, but if someone's really interested in cheating at this competition, it wouldn't be too hard.

[RoboCoder]

I think its another way to put a challenge into the game. This year there are so many things that the robot could possibly do, that it would be pretty easy (remember: everything's relative) to make your robot perform any given function as its primary function and do it well (one module for manipulating the multiplier balls, one for the pull-up bar, one etc etc etc), and swap them out to complement the capabilities of your alliance partner. By changin the rule, a limit is placed on teams who choose a modular interchangable design, and thus teams are encouraged to build one robot that can do multiple goals in a single match, which CAN DEFINATELY be a tougher task. Just another challenge FIRST wants to give us

[KenWittlief]

ah AH! so the Klingon verison of the manual WAS correct!

"Seven ways to score all day
one bot to rule them all
one bot to find them..." :c)

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Did they suspect that people weren't being honest, and were actually competing overweight?

I don't think cheating had anything do to with this rule. I think it has more to do with the whole issue of "what is the robot and what is the module" type discussions we all got into last year.

I think it is cleaner this way.

But... ...then again, it isn't my ox getting gored. We've never used the module rule so we didn't really loose anything.

Joe J.

[Raul]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Im looking at the rules from last year, and it says:

M5 at the time of robot inspection,you must present ALL mechanisms that you will use on the robot during the entire competition event... Only mechanisms that were present during the inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured...

I took that to mean all mechanisms must be presented "on the robot" - in previous years they spelled it out more explicity - last year this could be taken two ways

From what Raul said a few posts up, it sounds like they had their robot inspected with different attachments added OR removed - was it clear to the judges that this is what you were doing?

On our bot last year we had 4 wheel drive and we also had castors for the front if we wanted to take the front wheels off - we had it inspected with the 4 wheels AND the castors on at the same time, but when we played each match we were free to attach the front wheels OR the castors - this sounds like what is required this year

maybe I was mistaken about last years rules? either way, its clear for this year - everything you use must be on the robot at the same time for the whole inspection process - then if you choose, you can leave things off or put them back on.

Ken,

I am not offended by your questioning the legality of our robot last year - you have the right to do that if you are not familiar with the rules.
So, let me make it perfectly clear for you - the rule is different this year. Last year we were allowed to interchange different modules as long as each different configuration weighed less than 130 lbs.

[KevinB]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

As for this year, I'm a little curious as to why they changed this rule. Did they suspect that people weren't being honest, and were actually competing overweight? Hopefully not, as a good percentage of the rules rely on teams being honest. It's been mentioned before, but if someone's really interested in cheating at this competition, it wouldn't be too hard.

Although this rule change doesn't bother me at all, I don't think it will do anything to prevent cheating. The teams that want to cheat (hopefully there are none!) can still simply weigh in with certain modules missing and then add them back in the next day.

[Raul]

At first I did not particularly like the rule, but now I do not care that much.
It just forces us to implement additive instead of substituitive (did I just make up a word?) modularity.