Go to Post FIRST involves school, parents, family etc etc....at least it does at our house! - MrForbes [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 14:54
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,832
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz View Post
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.
Al, if they had all their electrical in one unit (e.g. 1 RC, 1 main breaker, 1 distribution block, 1 main battery, etc), would that be legal from an electrical standpoint?
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

Reply With Quote
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 14:58
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: 10,808
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: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Eric,
I am trying to show that no one specific rule will qualify a robot. It is a variety of tests. Your example begins to make a distinction between a 'robot" and an "attachment".
__________________
Good Luck All. Learn something new, everyday!
Al
WB9UVJ
www.wildstang.org
________________________
Storming the Tower since 1996.
Reply With Quote
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 15:35
Ken Streeter's Avatar
Ken Streeter Ken Streeter is offline
Let the MAYHEM begin!
FRC #1519 (Mechanical Mayhem)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Team: Milford, NH; Me: Bedford, NH
Posts: 475
Ken Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond reputeKen Streeter has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Thanks, Al, for sharing your perspective on this. As a long-time FIRST inspector, your view is particularly helpful in the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz View Post
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 the case of Fezzik and Speed Racer, one electrical board was moved back and forth between the two drive base configurations. There is only one main breaker, one Anderson connector, and one Rockwell block. (There is more about this in the Multi-configuration Robot Description that we submitted to the official Q&A.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz View Post
Mechanical: 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.
Each of Fezzik and Speed Racer fit inside the sizing box unconstrained. If necessary for sizing, we could have placed Speed Racer on Fezzik, but that would NOT have been one of our starting configurations.
__________________
Ken Streeter - Team 1519 - Mechanical Mayhem (Milford Area Youth Homeschoolers Enriching Minds)
2015 NE District Winners with 195 & 2067, 125 & 1786, 230 & 4908, and 95 & 1307
2013 World Finalists & Archimedes Division Winners with 33 & 469
2013 & 2012 North Carolina Regional Winners with teams 435 & 4828 and 1311 & 2642
2011, 2010, 2006 Granite State Regional Winners with teams 175 & 176, 1073 & 1058, and 1276 & 133
Team 1519 Video Gallery - including Chairman's Video, and the infamous "Speed Racer!"
Reply With Quote
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 15:50
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: 10,808
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: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Ken,
Thanks for the clarification of only one electrical board having all parts on it. Unfortunately, that makes it harder to make a decision from afar. Let's wait and see what the GDC decides. Anything beyond that is speculation. BTW, I know the GDC folks do watch CD from time to time and are likely reading his thread. They do not ask for my input so any of what I have posted is my opinion only and does not come from any discussion with them or any FIRST staffer. Any similarity in opinions is purely coincidental.
__________________
Good Luck All. Learn something new, everyday!
Al
WB9UVJ
www.wildstang.org
________________________
Storming the Tower since 1996.
Reply With Quote
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 15:53
Vikesrock's Avatar
Vikesrock Vikesrock is offline
Team 2175 Founder
AKA: Kevin O'Connor
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 3,305
Vikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Vikesrock Send a message via MSN to Vikesrock Send a message via Yahoo to Vikesrock
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Ruling is in - 2 robots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDC
It's unfortunate that this was not asked prior to the competition. The timing for a question like this would be more appropriate early in the build season. Building and bringing two robots that fit the criteria of one robot is not within the intent of the rules.

Rule <R09> expressly states that teams may only enter ONE (1) Robot into the competition.

Rule <R12> describes the basic structure of the robot plus additional mechanisms that are required at inspection. Two robots that share a control system and power supply do not fit this "basic" plus "additional" components since both robots are basic robot structures.

Rule <R114> claims THE (implication, ONE) Robot must be presented with all Mechanisms and that Mechanisms may be removed or reconfigured between matches. A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT.

The described robots are also in violation of the bumper construction rules. Rule <R08> permits one set of bumpers, weighing no more than 15 pounds, and extending no more than 3-1/2 inches from the 28 x 38 x 60 volume limits of the robot. There are two robot chassis and drive systems, with two sets of bumpers. But there is no way that the full set of bumpers (both sets) can be mounted on the (one - either one) robot and satisfy Rule <R08>.

The rules listed above make it clear that teams may enter one robot, not two and trade between the two, into the competition. Futhermore, we ask that you reread Section 8.3. We expect teams to use common sense rather than "lawyering" interpretations and splitting hairs over precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8985
__________________


2007 Wisconsin Regional Highest Rookie Seed & Regional Finalists (Thanks 930 & 2039)
2008 MN Regional Semifinalists (Thanks 2472 & 1756)
2009 Northstar Regional Semifinalists (Thanks 171 & 525)
Reply With Quote
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 16:24
BenjyPoore's Avatar
BenjyPoore BenjyPoore is offline
Squenjy the Squirrel!
FRC #1519 (Mechanical Mayhem)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 26
BenjyPoore is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to BenjyPoore
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikesrock View Post
Hmm that is kinda disappointing. It does seem that they don't understand that the two configurations use one set of bumpers that weighs exactly 15 pounds. That set includes 6 separate bumpers; we just choose to not put all of them on at one time. It doesn't matter as long as we cover 66% of the frame, right?

The part about rule <R114>: We only have one robot. According to us, the "robot" is the electrical board. The two bases are the attachments. All parts would be presented at the inspection. The rule says that we can use a subset of the mechanisms in a match, which we would have done.

I guess the point which makes or breaks the decision is what you define as the "basic robot structure" in rule <R12>. We call that the electrical board. The GDC calls it the robot frame.

Such a pity they didn't allow it.
Reply With Quote
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 16:37
vivek16's Avatar
vivek16 vivek16 is offline
Whoa! college pilot.
AKA: vivek
FRC #2264 (trojan robotics)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: plymouth, minnesota
Posts: 1,227
vivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond reputevivek16 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to vivek16 Send a message via MSN to vivek16
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Holley View Post
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.
Yeah, but I think that was the thing. They still have 2 separate systems and although they made them fit in the rules, it was still 2 separate systems and from a certain point of view, two separate robots.

It really is too bad. I was looking forward to watching speed racer.
__________________
"we don't build robots, we build people"
Reply With Quote
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 16:39
Matt H. Matt H. is offline
Long Distance Mentor
FRC #1726 (N.E.R.D.S.)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: May 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 238
Matt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond reputeMatt H. has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

I believe that the game design committee's response is flippant and not in the spirit of first. The design presented was incredibly creative and their own ruling would seem to make the 1519 design legal.

Unless I'm mistaken
"A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT"
would make their design legal.

The barb about lawyering at the end of the statement was unnecessary and not at all characteristic of the teams attitude as the have attempted to resolve the problem.

I'm still of the opinion that the RC is the robot and any additional parts are mechanisms, but I guess first would rather keep their competitions drab and beat down innovation.
Reply With Quote
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 16:42
Vogel648 Vogel648 is offline
Student Programming Leader
FRC #0648 (QC Elite)
Team Role: Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Sherrard
Posts: 64
Vogel648 is on a distinguished road
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Their point with the bumpers is not all could be attached legally to your robot at once. They would have to, as I understand it.
Edit: and the speed racer was not providing functionality on the fezzik configuration and vice versa, correct? I mean, since they're not providing functionality they can't be called mechanisms.

I certainly understand where they're coming from

Last edited by Vogel648 : 03-03-2008 at 16:44.
Reply With Quote
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 16:43
GaryVoshol's Avatar
GaryVoshol GaryVoshol is offline
Cogito ergo arbitro
no team
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 5,765
GaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

So this means that, in theory, a team can't have differing bumper configurations? Say that sometimes they want to use a full 100% enclosing set, and another time a minimal 67% set?

I don't dispute the GDC's right to call this 2 robots vs. one, and I don't think Ken and the rest of team 1519 dispute it either. But I don't think the GDC should have accused them of attempting to lawyer the rules, when there is no clear rule defining what a ROBOT is. As I pointed out above, this is a completely valid interpretation following FLL rules, where the ROBOT is specifically defined as the NXT/RCX "brain" plus anything attached to it. In the absence of a FRC definition, 1519's interpretation of the ROBOT being the required parts - RC, Rockwell, Fuse block, etc - plus various attachments (which in their case includes frames, motors and wheels) is reasonably valid.

Perhaps a ruling should have been requested of the GDC during build season, but any team submitting a Q&A takes the risk that other teams will copy their designs, and 1519 took the alternative risk that their unique design would be allowed. They were not prohibited from playing because of the ruling, they were just restricted in their game play. That's the risk they willingly took.
__________________
(since 2004)
Reply With Quote
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 16:44
Kingofl337's Avatar
Kingofl337 Kingofl337 is offline
You didn't see anything....
AKA: Adam
FRC #0501 (Power Knights)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 861
Kingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond reputeKingofl337 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to Kingofl337
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

After being at GSR and having seen both robots it really felt to me like they were two unique machines. Had smaller robot shared gearboxes, motors, battery holder and electronics you probably would have passed inspection. You could have used chain or gears to connect the two drive trains together and had the robot latch into place. This more then likely would have satisfied the rules. It was a great idea guys, if for nothing else trying to do it.

Last edited by Kingofl337 : 03-03-2008 at 16:56.
Reply With Quote
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 16:59
BenjyPoore's Avatar
BenjyPoore BenjyPoore is offline
Squenjy the Squirrel!
FRC #1519 (Mechanical Mayhem)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 26
BenjyPoore is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to BenjyPoore
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingofl337 View Post
After being at GSR and having seen both robots it really felt to me like they were two unique machines. Had smaller robot shared gearboxes, motors, battery holder and electronics you probably would have passed inspection. You could have used chain or gears to connect the two drive trains together and had the robot latch into place. This more then likely would have satisfied the rules. It was a great idea guys, if for nothing else trying to do it.
When we had to decide to use the hurdler robot, we zip-tied 30 lbs of dumbells to it to give greater pushing power. If there was room, we would have bolted the Speed Racer on to illustrate our point.
Reply With Quote
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 17:09
Tim Arnold's Avatar
Tim Arnold Tim Arnold is offline
1902 UCF Mentor; 1523 MARS Alumni
FRC #1902 (Exploding Bacon)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 460
Tim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond reputeTim Arnold has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Tim Arnold Send a message via MSN to Tim Arnold
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenjyPoore View Post
If there was room, we would have bolted the Speed Racer on to illustrate our point.
I suspect this is an important part of the ruling, and the biggest difference in my mind from it being "1 robot". If the speed racer config was PART the Fezzik (or at least attached together), and could be separated and leaving Fezzik behind, I suspect you wouldn't have had problems. Speed racer would essentially be a non-functional decoration component while on Fezzik.

If you wanted to bad enough, it doesn't seem to me like this is outlawed, even now. If you could make room, instead of dumbells, bolt on Speed Racer. It would look like one robot, and you could have all bumpers attached simultaneously for inspection. And to further satisfy the naysayers, perhaps you could leave the electronics in Speed racer and simply swap the motor cables and unbolt Speed Racer to change configurations.

Last edited by Tim Arnold : 03-03-2008 at 17:13.
Reply With Quote
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 17:17
jgannon's Avatar
jgannon jgannon is offline
I ᐸ3 Robots
AKA: Joey Gannon
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,467
jgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Initially I felt very strongly in 1519's favor. After reviewing this ruling, particularly the claim with respect to <R114>, I'm fairly confident that their design was unfortunately illegal. Nonetheless, I am appalled by the last paragraph of the GDC's reply. We all know that there are members of the GDC who read these forums, and nobody who has read Ken's words here could possibly think that 1519 was trying to "lawyer" loopholes or split hairs. They read the rules, applied common sense, and designed what they believed to be a creative and award-worthy solution to the year's challenge. To accuse a team of trying to pull a fast one on FIRST, particularly in light of the team's gracious handling of the situation, is surprisingly unprofessional. I fully expect that this Q&A response will be revised to embody the respect owed to any competitor who tries their best to follow the rules.
__________________
Team 1743 - The Short Circuits
2010 Pittsburgh Excellence in Design & Team Spirit Awards
2009 Pittsburgh Regional Champions (thanks to 222 and 1218)
2007 Pittsburgh Website Award
2006 Pittsburgh Regional Champions (thanks to 395 and 1038)
2006 Pittsburgh Rookie Inspiration & Highest Rookie Seed

Team 1388 - Eagle Robotics
2005 Sacramento Engineering Inspiration
2004 Curie Division Champions (thanks to 1038 and 175)
2004 Sacramento Rookie All-Star

_
Reply With Quote
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 17:19
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: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDC
Rule <R09> expressly states that teams may only enter ONE (1) Robot into the competition.
I have to assume that this is stated merely as a clarification. Using this as an argument for one position or another would be circular reasoning, because the whole point of the question was to better define what a robot actually is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDC
Rule <R12> describes the basic structure of the robot plus additional mechanisms that are required at inspection. Two robots that share a control system and power supply do not fit this "basic" plus "additional" components since both robots are basic robot structures.
The "basic ROBOT structure" is not defined in the rules. Judging by 1519's brief, they consider that structure to be their electronics board, as it is common to both configurations.

It would be perfectly reasonably to call their structure (i.e. the electronics board) basic, because it forms part of the robot which is used in every configuration. The word structure does not solely imply the set of components bearing the principal chassis loads. Even if it did imply that, how would this be reliably and repeatably testable by an inspector, given the multitude of robot designs out there? If it's not testable, it comes down to the official's best guess, and that's a situation that should be avoided, to maximize the consistency of officiation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDC
Rule <R114> claims THE (implication, ONE) Robot must be presented with all Mechanisms and that Mechanisms may be removed or reconfigured between matches. A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT.
Again, the point of the original question was to ask whether the set of components constituted a robot, or if there were indeed two. It's circular to use this as justification, because the team is contending that there is only one robot. For 1519 to have violated <R114>'s implication, one would have had to presuppose that there were two robots present. Apart from the business about presupposing one robot or two, it's clear that the team took great pains to comply with this rule.

Also, this is why lawyers draft contracts stating that "instances of the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural, and vice versa". It's not there to obsfuscate, though that may be an occasional side effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDC
The described robots are also in violation of the bumper construction rules. Rule <R08> permits one set of bumpers, weighing no more than 15 pounds, and extending no more than 3-1/2 inches from the 28 x 38 x 60 volume limits of the robot. There are two robot chassis and drive systems, with two sets of bumpers. But there is no way that the full set of bumpers (both sets) can be mounted on the (one - either one) robot and satisfy Rule <R08>.
<R08> does not specify "one set of bumpers" or anything to that effect. It is a list of requirements for whatever bumpers a team chooses to use. It is never stated that all bumpers must be used in a given configuration.

Answers like this one are the reason why it's important to establish and state clearly an order of precedence among official FIRST communications. When there's a discrepancy, nobody knows what to trust.

Also, I wonder how much of the GDC's decision was based upon the idea of maintaining consistency between events. That's a major goal among inspectors, and FIRST in general. Could it be that they were rationalizing a call that they didn't agree with, in order to prevent varying interpretations of the rule from being enforced?

Alternatively, was the GDC just trying to read their original intent into the rules, rather than thorougly considering the position they were in effect advancing? If the intent behind the definition of a robot was so important, couldn't it have been stated unambiguously in the first place?
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
pic: 1519 robot as of last tuesday dbell Extra Discussion 33 17-02-2008 19:09
pic: 1519 Robot Done (in LEGO CAD that is...) Tapoore Extra Discussion 12 13-01-2008 00:56
Dual Robots ChrisMcK2186 Rules/Strategy 15 08-01-2008 15:42
[ECDU]:one or two Michael Leicht FIRST-related Organizations 16 09-12-2004 07:23
two robots utishpenguin Rumor Mill 26 03-10-2002 02:57


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59.

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