1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

[GaryVoshol]

Ken, I think you've spent too much time in FLL. There, clearly the "Robot" is the NXT or RCX brain, and anything else you attach to it. Since you didn't bring an illegal quantity of motors to the "table" at any time, you meet the FLL rules.

I find the definition of "ROBOT" to be somewhat circular:

ROBOT: Anything that has passed ROBOT inspection that a TEAM places on the TRACK prior to the start of a MATCH.

(From the "Game" section of the rules no less, not the "Robot" section.) The inspectors get to decide what a ROBOT is as part of their ROBOT inspection. Clearly there has to be a better definition of what constitutes the minimal number of parts that make up a ROBOT. And that definition has to be very carefully worded - what is a "base" or "frame"? are "wheels" absolutely necessary? etc.

If it's any consolation, 1519 has earned itself a unique place in FIRST - the generation of a new rule in next year's manual.

[Brandon Holley]

This is a travesty if I have ever heard one.

Congratualtions on building 2 configurations of your robot within the weight limit. I am quite annoyed at the fact that FIRST has turned its shoulder to creativity with this one. I could understand their ruling if your "robots" each complied with the rules, but if together they were able to comply to the rules of 1 robot, then what is the problem?

Could you imagine strategizing during elims...well which one are they gonna put out there? The awesome autonomous mode and quick lap runner or the effective ball hurdler....that would really keep teams on their toes.



Good job guys, keep us posted if you hear anything.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by EricH

I have to ask how they became aware and whether you were told before the event. Or do you know how they became aware of your intentions?

Our dual-configuration design was "unveiled" at an event held annually by one of our primary sponsors, BAE Systems, on the Friday prior to ship date. This year, there were over a dozen teams in attendance unveiling their robots. Also in attendance were many of the volunteers who run and staff the BAE Systems Granite State Regional, including the head technical inspector. Our design raised many eyebrows that evening and elicited questions from other teams as to whether our design was legal.

After ship date (and still a few days prior to the start of our regional) I spoke with the head technical inspector for GSR, describing our design and why I thought it was in compliance with the rules. I should note that I personally have the utmost respect and confidence in the GSR head technical inspector; he is an excellent engineer as well as a co-worker and friend of mine. Since our design was way off the beaten path, he inquired of FIRST as to the legality of our approach. He told us of FIRST's answer as soon as possible; we learned of it in the "crate opening" period on Thursday of GSR. The response from FIRST said that if we disagreed with the decision, we would need to submit an official Q&A request on the matter. We did that as quickly as we could, which wasn't until shortly after lunch on Thursday. I presume that an official answer in the Q&A will be forthcoming some time this week.

[Snake Doctor]

Would it have been possible to have the smaller "Racer' bot be the core for the larger bot with the arm? Two drive motors for the core with an additional two drive motors and the arm as add-on to the core frame. Modular bumpers that could be removed from the larger frame and use only part of the bumpers on the smaller "racer" bot. I would assume your inivation in design was not considered for an award because it was not allowed to be used in the competition.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

Do you have a picture of both robots as one entity, or as much together as weight allows?

We didn't get a picture of both configurations in the same place at GSR. However, we do have a photo from the "Robot Unveiling" from the Friday prior to ship date:



A high-resolution version of the same image is available at http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/imag...-unveiling.jpg

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

I think what is burning you technically is the bumpers if I am envisioning this correctly. Do all your bumpers that you would use on every configuration meet standard weight limit requirements?

We had a set of six bumpers which weighed exactly 15.0 pounds of which a subset would be mounted on either configuration, as follows:

• Bumpers 1 and 2: Side bumpers for "Fezzik"
• Bumper 3: Back bumper for "Fezzik"; same bumper could be mounted as the front bumper for the "Speed Racer"
• Bumpers 4-6: Side and back bumpers for the "Speed Racer"

The bumpers used in either configuration covered just more than 2/3 of the perimeter for that starting configuration. We actually had a fair bit of difficulty getting all six bumpers into the 15 pound weight limit -- we used 1/20th aluminum angle (instead of the 1/16th we've used in prior years) and carefully chose the placement of our fasteners in order to minimize weight and accommodate both robot configurations.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Ken, I think you've spent too much time in FLL. There, clearly the "Robot" is the NXT or RCX brain, and anything else you attach to it. Since you didn't bring an illegal quantity of motors to the "table" at any time, you meet the FLL rules.

Actually, Gary, I think you've hit the nail on the head -- coming from a FIRST LEGO League mindset, a modular robot configuration is very natural. (It's exactly what we've done for years in FLL, with plug-and-play drive bases, arms, and manipulators being connected to a "core robot" to modify it for different missions.) That approach, however, is not traditional in the FIRST Robotics Competition.

However, to play "devil's advocate" on our design and help illustrate what I think is the alternative perspective on the matter (that we obviously brought two robots, not one dual-configuration robot), let us consider a comparable analogy:

Consider two vehicles for sale at your local Ford dealer: a Ford Escape and a Ford Focus. Let's say you purchase these two vehicles and bring them home with you. After getting them home, you take the engine out of the Focus and have the engine recycled for scrap steel. Now, whenever you want to commute to work you pull the engine out of the Escape and stick it in the Ford Focus. When the weekend arrives and you want to go offroading, you pull the engine again and stick it into the Escape. Do you have one vehicle, or two? Sure looks and feels like two vehicles to me!

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Ken,
Without really seeing the mechanisms in person, I would have to agree with the decision that was rendered at GSR based on the description and photos. A rather simple test in testing robot configurations is whether one supports the other as in a detachable arm or other component. If you consider Speed racer to be an attachment it would need to be "attched" to your other base. Moving electronics from one base that drives to another base that drives does not, in my mind, represent two attachments but two separate robots. That does not preclude your attempt to think outside the box and design a unique solution that potentially could win on several levels. I applaud your ability to build both pieces and stay below the 120 lb limit. R12 makes an example for weigh in but the example further describes the multiple configuration.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

Actually, Gary, I think you've hit the nail on the head -- coming from a FIRST LEGO League mindset, a modular robot configuration is very natural. (It's exactly what we've done for years in FLL, with plug-and-play drive bases, arms, and manipulators being connected to a "core robot" to modify it for different missions.) That approach, however, is not traditional in the FIRST Robotics Competition.

However, to play "devil's advocate" on our design and help illustrate what I think is the alternative perspective on the matter (that we obviously brought two robots, not one dual-configuration robot), let us consider a comparable analogy:

Consider two vehicles for sale at your local Ford dealer: a Ford Escape and a Ford Focus. Let's say you purchase these two vehicles and bring them home with you. After getting them home, you take the engine out of the Focus and have the engine recycled for scrap steel. Now, whenever you want to commute to work you pull the engine out of the Escape and stick it in the Ford Focus. When the weekend arrives and you want to go offroading, you pull the engine again and stick it into the Escape. Do you have one vehicle, or two? Sure looks and feels like two vehicles to me!

yeah, but you don't have the ability to use the 2 vehicles at the same time, and at any given time only 1 of the vehicles will be in use.....i think thats what clinches it for me, the fact that even though you have 2 separate systems, only 1 will be in use at any given time.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

Consider two vehicles for sale at your local Ford dealer: a Ford Escape and a Ford Focus. Let's say you purchase these two vehicles and bring them home with you. After getting them home, you take the engine out of the Focus and have the engine recycled for scrap steel. Now, whenever you want to commute to work you pull the engine out of the Escape and stick it in the Ford Focus. When the weekend arrives and you want to go offroading, you pull the engine again and stick it into the Escape. Do you have one vehicle, or two? Sure looks and feels like two vehicles to me!

Continuing the thought experiment, it seems necessary that we examine our definition of a vehicle. There's an argument to be made that if we don't rely on our preconceived notion of what a Ford is, then we might find that our system satisfies all of the criteria placed upon it, even though it is, to the casual observer, two vehicles.

Consider an alternative case: say we have the Escape, and we buy all of the parts needed to assemble a Focus, except the engine. Initially, by all accounts, we possess a vehicle and a pile of parts. Then, we remove the engine from the Escape, and start bolting Focus parts on to it. At this point, we have a vehicle without an engine (is that still a vehicle?), and a pile of parts. At what point do we declare that we no longer have a pile of parts, and instead have a Ford Focus? That's the problem here: the robot definition doesn't specify how we might make that decision. To the outside observer, while the appearance of two robots or two vehicles may seem self-evident, in reality, the robot construction process more closely approximates this procedure, and, in my opinion, ought to be treated as such.

[diesel]

[quote=Al Skierkiewicz;711746]
Without really seeing the mechanisms in person, I would have to agree with the decision that was rendered at GSR based on the description and photos. A rather simple test in testing robot configurations is whether one supports the other as in a detachable arm or other component. If you consider Speed racer to be an attachment it would need to be "attched" to your other base. Moving electronics from one base that drives to another base that drives does not, in my mind, represent two attachments but two separate robots. QUOTE]

I'm sorry but I will have to respectfully disagree with you. In the rules I don't recall a rule on how many componets can be switched, just a weight rule. Therefore I see this teams as swapping out everything but there electronics board, as being one 'bot.

I believe when trying to figure out a 'base' for a robot, (in which the componets are swaped off of and put onto) that this topic gets confusing. BUT in the rules there is no mention of a 'base'.

And those are two great looking robots.

[dtengineering]

The catch in the car example is that there is usually a clear definition of what constitutes a vehicle for registration purposes. Each vehicle frame and each vehicle engine is given a serial number. Typically it is the vehicle frame's serial number that is registered, not the vehicle engine's. Thus the registration rules (in most provinces/states, I presume) are quite clear that the vehicle is the frame... and that you can swap out engines as much as you like, so long as you comply with all safety and emissions guidelines. You can read the rules and clearly predict how they will be interpreted.

FIRST has no such definition of what a robot is. You cannot read the rules and clearly predict how they will be interpreted in this case. I disagree with the assumption that the robot is what supports the various configurations... that is neither stated in the rules, nor obvious. Does this mean that the wheels are the robot? The tires?

There will likely be a new rule generated for next year, but in the meantime you deserved the benefit of the doubt and official recognition for your creativity.

And thanks for the clarification on the motors and such.

Jason

[ALIBI]

There is no doubt that the definition of a robot is pretty much not defined. Actually, I could not find ROBOT defined in the definitions. I will be interested to see what the GDC replys with. The example in <R12> illustrates a basic drive train platform with two versions of game piece manipulators, not two distinct drive train platforms. Besides, <R12> deals with weight, not the basic robot. <R09> specifies ONE ROBOT. As soon as you move the RC from one basic drive train platform to another basic drive train, you have created "TWO ROBOTS". The officials are powerless to make any formal rulings on your robot design until the regional actually starts and you bring your robot for inspection. Regardless, you still have the option to choose one or the other for the entire regional which in itself is a good plan. If your more robust drive train with the manipulator was an attachment to your smaller speedster, I would have said you were OK, as long as your speedster stayed attached to the larger drive train while competing. You would then have been able to detach the larger drive train/manipulator from your speedster and used only the speedster if you wanted. I do commend you for your effort.

EDIT: If you were permitted to do this, what would keep teams from puting a half dozen robots in their crate and then deciding which robot(s) they bring to the inspection station? Or, if they find out that the one or two they chose don't work well, then return to the inspection station with something totally different after a couple of practice matches?

Part of me does agree with Jason, there is no clear definition of ROBOT and since this appears to be an isolated case, you should have at least been given the benefit of a doubt this season.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Ken,
Without really seeing the mechanisms in person, I would have to agree with the decision that was rendered at GSR based on the description and photos. A rather simple test in testing robot configurations is whether one supports the other as in a detachable arm or other component. If you consider Speed racer to be an attachment it would need to be "attched" to your other base. Moving electronics from one base that drives to another base that drives does not, in my mind, represent two attachments but two separate robots. That does not preclude your attempt to think outside the box and design a unique solution that potentially could win on several levels. I applaud your ability to build both pieces and stay below the 120 lb limit. R12 makes an example for weigh in but the example further describes the multiple configuration.

Al,

I disagree with you. The issue is what defines a robot, Is the robot that chassis or the robot controller? It's much like what is a person, the brain or the body.

In my personal view the robot controller (brains) is the robot. The rest is just attachments.

At what point does the "modular" become a new robot? When someone changes wheels? Arms? chassis? where is the line?

It truely saddens me to see that even in FIRST, innovation and inspiration is shunned and punished because it does not 'conform' to their perceptions of what is supposed to be.

Just my 2 cents.

[MrForbes]

Too late now....but I think a way to have done what you wanted legally would be to have a small drive base (perhaps a 2wd squarebot) to which you add a larger framework with two more drive wheels, and the mechanism. I think the problem is that you have two mostly complete robots (minus electronics), not a complete robot plus some other parts.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

In reading the replies thus far, I have thought the solution put forth by Jim above is actually acceptable. Remember that in my original post I did not specify a base nor did I define a robot as a particular assembly of certain components for the simple reason that the robot section of the rules does not. I was just rendering an opinion based on the data present in this thread. However, I have been thinking about this problem throughout the morning and I have read through Rev E again and let me tell you what inspectors must look for while making these decisions.
Electrical:
Under R50 a robot and it's electrical components must be wired as shown in the Electrical Distribution Diagram. In this case, there are two such distributions. Not provided for in the rules are two main breakers, two Anderson connectors, two Rockwell blocks for main power distro, or two places in which to connect the main battery. Under R43 only one main battery will feed the robot. In this case you could interpret this rule either way but in strict interpretation an attachment should be fed from just one main distribution and one main battery not from either of two separate electrical systems. Under R55, the robot controller is fed from one 20 amp circuit breaker, not one of two.
Mechanical:
Under definitions..."MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on
the ROBOT." Please note the singular reference of ROBOT as it is used throughout the ROBOT manual.
<R09> Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition. That ROBOT shall fully comply with all rules specified in the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition manual.
Under the first item in the Robot Inspection Checklist (which references a variety of rules) the robot and attachment(s) must fit inside the sizing box unconstrained. It was not mentioned if the robot passed this test.
Now certainly you could find other examples in the rules but when looked at in total, you can see how I came to my opinion. Each of the items mentioned imply that there is a logical electrical flow from one main battery through one main circuit breaker to one power distribution block to breaker panel(s). Logic follows that an "attachment" would be fed from breakers on the existing panels not from a separate power distribution. Everything points to a logical device that can be called a robot as it stands alone. You can consider your own logical tests but each regional team must consider all of these and more when determining if a team is in compliance. You make the call on this one. Can you really call Speed Racer an attachment? If so, how do you meet the other tests.
Now all of this being said, remember that I applaud this team's thinking outside the box. I do not wish them to be penalized nor am I chastizing them for their unique design. An inspector is responsible for keeping the playing field level by insuring that a robot is in compliance with the rules via the Inspection Checklist. I even agree with Jim above, if Speed Racer, the battery and control system and power distro somehow fit into the larger robot frame, (even if Speed Racer's wheels were off the floor) and the larger robot frame derived power from the smaller and both fit in the sizing box unconstrained, it might be a legal robot in all of the definitions we have been trained to inspect.