1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

[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.