Go to Post You can never go wrong by gaining height by way of a Segway. - Elgin Clock [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

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-03-2008, 18:15
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,730
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: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

I have to say that Tristan covered most of the points I was going to. Taking the answer from the GDC as a whole, it really feels to me like reasoning they came up with after they decided to disallow 1519's design. I'm not even convinced it makes any logical sense. As pointed out, a ROBOT is explicitly defined as something that's passed inspection. Declaring that you can't pass inspection because you have two things that have passed inspection clearly is nonsense. If you posit that pre-inspection a robot must be something that you're trying to get to pass inspection.... Well they were only trying to pass one thing through inspection.

As Tristan pointed out, the bumper rules only state that your bumpers in total must weigh less than 15 lbs and that your robot must have 2/3rds the perimeter covered. If the GDC is ruling that any bumpers you bring to the competition must always be attached to your robot.... Well they needed to say that somewhere, as it's a pretty restrictive and important rule. If you designed a modular robot that fit the GDC's arbitrary preconceived notions of what they know you know they were thinking, but you needed to remove the back bumper to make the 80" rule with your hurdler.... well you'd be in trouble. Will refs start DQing rookies for sending robots out missing a bumper they had on site even though they're still covering 67% of the robot?

As to the R114 reference, I don't really see how Fezzik and Speed Racer aren't mechanisms. They both provide specific functionality. Is the GDC claiming that if you have a module that does more than one thing, that it's illegal? While I know previous years rules don't apply, I know I've seen modules more complicated than a single motor used before. 57's even done so. And again, they just refer back to mechanisms ON THE ROBOT without bothering to define what a robot is.

And finally, as to their reasoning with R12 and "basic ROBOT structure"... I think a casual reading of the example given gives the impression that the drive train plus manipulators solution was the solution of that particular team. I mean, it says right there that that was how they decided to do it.

I'm not disputing the GDC's authority to make this ruling, but I think they have a responsibility to fairly, clearly, and above all logically explain their ruling. Circular reasoning and expressions of "Hmph. Well you should've known we wouldn't allow this." don't meet this standard for me. I realize this is clearly something they had never considered before and that they were probably caught by surprise. But I think that means they should reread the rules as they wrote them and rules based on that. I seem to recall a contentious issue that came up a few years ago after the ship date where the GDC ruled very clearly on a very straight forward reading of the rules. And pointed out some rather restrictive preconceptions many of us were working under at the time. I find it ironic in the extreme that this time the GDC has decided that their preconceived notions are the ones that win. If they decided that they obviously left out a proper definition of a robot from the rules, at least man up and say so an give a clear definition that can be worked from. I ask this because the response they've given to this Q&A is so vague as to be completely useless for any other ruling that might need to be made going forward.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
Reply With Quote
 


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 15:44.

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