Go to Post I have a feeling this is going to be a really good year.:) - Richard Wallace [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy > You Make The Call
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: You Make The Call
Legal! No need to use the same drill motor. 22 33.33%
Illegal! Swapping out the drill motor is a must. 44 66.67%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 13-12-2004, 19:03
Marc P. Marc P. is offline
I fix stuff.
AKA: βetamarc
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Watertown, CT
Posts: 997
Marc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Marc P.
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
It is most definitely a slippery slope situation. I wish that we could figure out rules that didn't lend themselves to that sort of argument, because Kevin, or I, or anyone else, can pick out a situation that makes the rule look foolish. Doing so isn't being "lawyerly", though--it's an easy way of gauging what could go wrong with the rule, and in so doing, it guides your personal interpretation of what's reasonable. When we're asked to consider "gracious professionalism", or the "spirit of FIRST", we're interpreting the rule--whether it does or doesn't happen to coincide with the unspoken beliefs of the rule-writers is irrelevant, because by leaving ambiguity, and leaving room for interpretation, the door is open to a wide variety of reasonably considered, and strictly legal variations, even though some extreme cases might not be terribly appealing. For that reason, you need a rule to define the limits of what's acceptable, not merely the fallacious argument "it isn't graciously professional enough".

So while I think that Al's "fully functional" stipulation is quite sensible, I don't think that there is enough basis in the rules to force a team to abide by it; they couldn't reasonably be expected to have inferred that from what the rules stated.

In real life, we do have laws that are ill-written, and we do have people who argue about semantics, and people who push the limits of what's acceptable. If we want FIRST's rules to represent a broad cross-section of what's good and bad about law and its conventional interpretation in society, then loopholes are par for the course. Otherwise, we need to actively strive to be explicit about our rules. The trick is controlling interpretation, without limiting creativity.
The interpretation here is relatively clear, and ultimately soley at the discretion of the inspectors and referees at each event. My reasoning would have been if there is a possible weight problem due to any two mechanisms needing common parts, do your best to design and mount the common parts directly to the chasis. If a common motor is needed between two devices, mount the motor directly to the chasis, with a sprocket to use a chain, or a gear for a belt, to each device's gearbox/mechanism. Then, each mechanism can be mounted without worrying about the extra weight of a new motor between them.
Reply With Quote
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-12-2004, 19:37
Jack Jones Jack Jones is offline
Retired
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Waterford, MI
Posts: 964
Jack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Not so fast. It's also a spare part, which doesn't count against the limit.
...
Incredible! But then again, some people are still struggling with what is is.
__________________
This message is hidden because Jack Jones is on your ignore list.
Reply With Quote
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-12-2004, 23:40
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Jones
Incredible! But then again, some people are still struggling with what is is.
Oh, so if I have eleven drill motors (10 of which are spares), I have to account for the weight of each of them? Do I weigh in with my spare batteries too? Some people are apparently still struggling with that little problem. [Edit: As a public service announcement to others, I'm being facetious. Don't worry.]

Read what I actually said about the rules not precluding that drill being considered a spare. And the potential problem with counting the weight of parts that can be installed in different places, thanks to a configurable robot. I doubt that you did either of those things, before jumping in with a weakly-reasoned position. (Or, rather, if you dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare, you might consider actually explaining yourself.)

Last edited by Tristan Lall : 15-12-2004 at 00:08.
Reply With Quote
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 00:05
Steve W Steve W is offline
Grow Up? Why?
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Toronto,Ontario Canada
Posts: 2,523
Steve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Oh, so if I have eleven drill motors (10 of which are spares), I have to account for the weight of each of them? Do I weigh in with my spare batteries too? Some people are apparently still struggling with that little problem.

Read what I actually said about the rules not precluding that drill being considered a spare. And the potential problem with counting the weight of parts that can be installed in different places, thanks to a configurable robot. I doubt that you did either of those things, before jumping in with a weakly-reasoned position. (Or, rather, if you dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare, you might consider actually explaining yourself.)
When attached to a legal functional weighed in part of your robot it is not a spare. If you attach after weigh in it becomes part of a functional part of the robot and must be weighed in. If you have 2 motors attached to parts of a legal weighed in robot then they must be counted. As soon as you place on the robot then Gracious Professionalism dictates that you take all parts to the weigh in and then re weigh. I am surprised that you of all people do not understand simplicity and stated rules. You are a smart guy. Tell me what you believe the intent of the rule to be. That being the fact that you weight in robot and ALL attachments.
__________________
We do not stop playing because we grow old;
we grow old because we stop playing.
Reply With Quote
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 00:12
Unsung FIRST Hero
JVN JVN is offline
@JohnVNeun
AKA: John Vielkind-Neun
FRC #0148 (Robowranglers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Greenville, Tx
Posts: 3,159
JVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
(Or, rather, if you dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare, you might consider actually explaining yourself.)
I dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare. Here is why:

As stated in the original question, the drill motor is a distinct part of the 2 assemblies. It does NOT reside on the general base and "reach up into" the assemblies in any way.

As per the 2004 rules, if a component is a piece of 2 distinct assemblies and NOT part of the robot "base" which these assemblies attach to, it must be present in both assemblies during check in.


Last year's rules were designed to discourage modularity of ANY sort. It makes sense that the rules would be aggresively designed to put teams in the "worst possible" weight scenario.

Think of it this way: "If it hurts you, it is probably the correct interpretation of the modularity rules."

All the arguments I've seen from the Lall side of things are this:
"There are multiple ways to interpret the rules, here is mine."

Yep, there are multiple ways to interpret a rule; correctly and incorrectly.
This is just so clear cut, (like Steve Warren previously said) I am shocked that you guys are unable to see it. Just because one interpretation "makes more sense" to you, doesn't mean it's the right one. FIRST went completely aginst what a lot of tems wanted. They killed modularity. We all got over it, and didn't look for a loophole.

Canadian Lawyers...
Now I understand why Dave has grey hair.

John
__________________
In the interest of full disclosure: I work for VEX Robotics a subsidiary of Innovation First International (IFI) Crown Supplier & Proud Supporter of FIRST

Last edited by JVN : 15-12-2004 at 20:57.
Reply With Quote
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 00:45
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Neither graciousness nor professionalism have anything to do with this problem--we can exemplify both to our hearts' content, but the fact is, there exist two reasonable interpretations of the rules, and the mere fact that one seems more altruistic doesn't excuse us from considering that the alternative is also a fair way of reading the rules. (Or maybe it isn't: that's the point we ought to be discussing.)

Steve you ask me to judge the intent of the rule. I seem to recall an issue a while back where we discussed the pros and cons of judging intent. Dave Lavery mentioned that "If you don't know the intent of the rule-writer, then all you have to go on is the words of the rule itself." While I wouldn't personally mind some consideration of intent, I don't feel that the rules and customs of FIRST allow us the luxury of doing that--largely because our judgments of intent are really just educated guesses of often-dubious validity.

Now, with regard to JVN's post, Dave has explained the intent of the rule-writers in a recent post--that was not known during the competition season, and could not be expected to have been known to any random team, unless it were officially announced. We can't argue with the benefit of that knowledge, since it was acquired ex post facto, and never officially disseminated. As we all know, Dave's answers on this forum can't be considered binding to FIRST teams at large, correct (or incorrect) as they might be. If we were to add the sum of our musings to the rules, the answer would be clear-cut, and in your favour--but we can't, because FIRST didn't.

I know why the rules were written--this was explained, and makes sense. I don't think that the rules were quite comprehensive enough to limit the scope of the robots in the manner intended.

And John, the sentence you quoted was directed at Jack, who seemed to be content with a post-and-run flame, rather than a statement of his reasoning.

Last edited by Tristan Lall : 15-12-2004 at 00:50.
Reply With Quote
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 07:20
Unsung FIRST Hero
Al Skierkiewicz Al Skierkiewicz is offline
Broadcast Eng/Chief Robot Inspector
AKA: Big Al WFFA 2005
FRC #0111 (WildStang)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Wheeling, IL
Posts: 10,798
Al Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Guys,
This thread has drifted a little to a really good discussion on the rules. Many of you have brought up the lawyer card in reading and interpreting rules. That is an easy deduction to make but I prefer to look at the rules as a substitute for Mother Nature. In my mind, generally, the rules keep us safe or give us a false physical limit to use for design parameters and construction. I can tell you that if you went to NASA with two attachments to be put on a spacecraft and tried to make the argument that they meet weight with a motor installed in only one, you, at best, would be laughed at. You know that both motors need to be installed for that device to fly and the weight limit is there to get it off the ground. All those inventors, scientists and engineers came up with real solutions to real world problems and did not try to bend the rules to achieve them. The rule is clear and specifies only one battery and does not include spares.
<R06> The maximum allowed weight of all robot configuration components combined is 130.0 pounds (58.97kg). 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.
__________________
Good Luck All. Learn something new, everyday!
Al
WB9UVJ
www.wildstang.org
________________________
Storming the Tower since 1996.
Reply With Quote
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 18:05
Unsung FIRST Hero
Rich Wong Rich Wong is offline
NYC FIRST Planning Committee Member
no team (NYC FIRST)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,674
Rich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond reputeRich Wong has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Rich Wong
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
Guys,
I can tell you that if you went to NASA with two attachments to be put on a spacecraft and tried to make the argument that they meet weight with a motor installed in only one, you, at best, would be laughed at. You know that both motors need to be installed for that device to fly and the weight limit is there to get it off the ground.
*pause*
This is an excellent analogy! I wouldn’t be surprise if Dave or Woodie uses it in the next Kickoff intro.

please continue debate......
__________________
popularis de ob instinctus agnitionis scientia technologia
Home website: www.nycnjfirst.org
Member of NEMO & e^(i*pi)+1 Fraternity.
Member of Friends of Robots
Member of NYCFIRST Planning Committee
Reply With Quote
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 18:31
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
I can tell you that if you went to NASA with two attachments to be put on a spacecraft and tried to make the argument that they meet weight with a motor installed in only one, you, at best, would be laughed at. You know that both motors need to be installed for that device to fly and the weight limit is there to get it off the ground. All those inventors, scientists and engineers came up with real solutions to real world problems and did not try to bend the rules to achieve them. The rule is clear and specifies only one battery and does not include spares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natchez
Since only one mechanism is on Redabot at a time
Al, I don't think the analogy quite captures the problem--as you've phrased it, doesn't it lend itself better to a scenario wherein the total weight of the as-launched vehicle is less than the limit? (That is to say, like 2003.) After all, NASA would itself be laughed at if it thought its vehicle overweight for apparatus that would not be flying with the vehicle on this trip, and which couldn't have been attached in combination with the attachment being used. In short, no, both motors do not have to be attached for the device to fly (or the robot to run), because there exists no configuration that uses both motors simultaneously--there's no place to fit it in.
Reply With Quote
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 19:17
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is online now
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,744
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

I think the point was that the rules as stated are an engineering constraint over the entire system, not just what you have on the field at any particular moment. Since this year's rules mandate weighing all attachments together, they are probably meant in this sense. The old modular rules were meant in your particular sense.

To better detail the analogy, NASA is asking for a system for astronauts to use in space to accomplish all these tasks. You wouldn't send them without one of the attachments, because then you'd never use it.

To me common sense dictates that "spare" parts are there to be swapped out when something is broken, worn out, scratched, etc. The reason that the second motor is no longer a spare is the fact that it's not being swapped out because it's already there bolted down and integrated to the assembly. No work is being done to swap it out, you're just using semantics and pretending it's being swapped for the other part without actually doing anything. So I guess my definition of a spare part includes the physical act of replacing something.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
Reply With Quote
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 20:36
jonathan lall's Avatar
jonathan lall jonathan lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #2505 (The Electric Sheep; FRC #0188 alumnus)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 547
jonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to jonathan lall
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Okay, the two sides in this debate are clear-cut; my righteous brother, stick. The only way it's going to go forward is if people stop repeating themselves. Tristan has presented the exact same challenge I would have if I agreed with him (which is creepy), but it has gone largely unanswered because people can't get past other things. Here is something the other side needs to do if they are to beat Tristan through logic:

1) Don't factor in what the rulemakers intended to say, but rather what they did say, because intent of rulemkers is immaterial, especially with this rule. He quotes Dave Lavery, one of the 2004 rule writers, on this point to great effect from a different YMTC. It would seem that nearly everyone that disagrees with Tristan, including Dave, cite what Dave intended to say in the rules. JVN goes so far as to appeal to authority (since Dave said this, it must be done this way) as a reason he's right.

2) Explain to us why these two modules constitute "different configurations" as there exists no robot configuration in which both motors are used simultaneously. Here's a leading question for you: Isn't it true that enforcing/interpreting this rule here is nothing more than nitpicking, penalizing creative thinking that does not disadvantage other teams on the battlefield to even a small degree?

3) Stop invoking GP like it's the new Elvis. Whenever someone does the whole "Gracious Professionalism is on my side" routine, my body's natural reaction is to cringe. What, pray tell, makes GP on your side rather than Tristan's?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 20:41
JamesCH95's Avatar
JamesCH95 JamesCH95 is offline
Hardcore Dork
AKA: JCH
FRC #0095 (The Grasshoppers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Enfield, NH
Posts: 1,891
JamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond reputeJamesCH95 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

This issue is very simple:

The robot must be weighed in with ALL modular components.
The motor is merely another modular component, making 4 components in total (drive chassis, two functionality comonents, and one motor component)
The robot passes weight with all modular comoponets accounted for.
It's legal!
__________________
Theory is a nice place, I'd like to go there one day, I hear everything works there.

Maturity is knowing you were an idiot, common sense is trying to not be an idiot, wisdom is knowing that you will still be an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 21:00
Unsung FIRST Hero
JVN JVN is offline
@JohnVNeun
AKA: John Vielkind-Neun
FRC #0148 (Robowranglers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Greenville, Tx
Posts: 3,159
JVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan lall
JVN goes so far as to appeal to authority (since Dave said this, it must be done this way) as a reason he's right.
You guys both hit me for this one, and you were correct.
We can't use Dave's word as law. He wrote the rules, but we need to disregard his comments.

I have edited my original post.

John
__________________
In the interest of full disclosure: I work for VEX Robotics a subsidiary of Innovation First International (IFI) Crown Supplier & Proud Supporter of FIRST

Last edited by JVN : 15-12-2004 at 21:06. Reason: I typed "edited" wrong, how amusing.
Reply With Quote
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 21:05
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is online now
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,744
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
<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.

Example: 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. The team accomplished this by constructing its robot as a basic drive train platform plus two versions of a ball gripper, each gripper being a quick attach / detach device such that either one or the other gripper may be part of the robot at the beginning of a match. Their robot's platform weighs 120 lb, version A of the gripper weighs 6 lb, and version B weighs 8 lb. Although only one version will be on the robot during a match, both must be on the weight scale along with the robot platform during weigh in. This would result in a rejection of
the robot because its total weight comes to 134 lb.
So here's the entire relevant section. Emphasis mine. The weight is all attached parts. If you've attached the other motor it's now and attached part. Period.

I've included the example because it gives some insight into the intent here. The rule makers were obviously expecting multiple configurations to be used strategically and before a match. Time is a definite factor here. By attaching the second motor, the team quite definitely gains a benefit. They save the time it would take to detach it and reattach it. If it takes even 5 minutes, it is important, because the time between the finals matches is very short anyways.

Intent does matter if you have something to base it on and some insight into it, I think.

EDIT: It also says all configuration components. Nothing about different configurations, etc. I'll also put out here that attaching the second drill motor to the 2nd assembly makes that motor a component of that system. and it's obviously a different component than the original motor.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter

Last edited by Kevin Sevcik : 15-12-2004 at 21:10.
Reply With Quote
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 21:06
Unsung FIRST Hero
Al Skierkiewicz Al Skierkiewicz is offline
Broadcast Eng/Chief Robot Inspector
AKA: Big Al WFFA 2005
FRC #0111 (WildStang)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Wheeling, IL
Posts: 10,798
Al Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

" 2) Explain to us why these two modules constitute "different configurations" as there exists no robot configuration in which both motors are used simultaneously. Here's a leading question for you: Isn't it true that enforcing/interpreting this rule here is nothing more than nitpicking, penalizing creative thinking that does not disadvantage other teams on the battlefield to even a small degree?"

Tristan,
I am pretty sure you just agreed with me in that last sentence. Reread your post and think about it again.

Jonathon,
The two modules are different configurations because that is how the "what if" was presented. There is no configuration in which both motors are used just as there are no configurations in which both arms are used. Hence my support of the 2003 rules where only the most heavy configuration be weighed. Since the rule changed, my design strategy had to. Remember the "virtual team" in question brought two attachments to be inspected but only one of them was complete. Don't look at this from the standpoint that is your robot, instead look at it from the standpoint of all the other teams at the competition who weighed in with fully functional attachments and passed inspection at < or= to 130lb..
__________________
Good Luck All. Learn something new, everyday!
Al
WB9UVJ
www.wildstang.org
________________________
Storming the Tower since 1996.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
YMTC: Is it goaltending? Natchez You Make The Call 43 12-04-2004 18:03
YMTC: Redabot grabs rail Natchez You Make The Call 10 10-04-2004 12:16
YMTC: Redabot accidentally breaks goal Natchez You Make The Call 9 10-04-2004 12:11
YMTC: Bluabot sits on Redabot Natchez You Make The Call 19 08-04-2004 16:43
YMTC: Bluabot and Redabot hanging? Natchez You Make The Call 15 23-03-2004 01:42


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:35.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi