Define "ROBOT"

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

Just a quick summary of what's going on: 1519 built two robots this year.

And that's the problem...they are only allowed to enter one robot, not two.

Apparently you know that there are two robots, and 1519 knows there are two robots (the two robots have different names). It seems to be common knowledge, even though we don't have a precise definition of what a robot is.

If 1519 had built only one robot, then we would not be having this discussion!

[BenB]

I really dont see whats wrong with what they have done. Basicly instead of switching out a manipulator, they are switching out a drivebase. It is all still run by the same electrons, so theoretically it is the same robot. They meet the weight limitations, which must have limited their design capabilties significantly, equating any advantages they get by have two "robots". Just because they named them differently, doesn't constitute different robots, you could name your arms different things and that doesn't count as two robots.

Simply put I think its rediculous that they were rejected bearing in mind the kept all materials for both robots under 120 lbs. I think they should be aloud to play as they please with either drivetrain. I commend them for attempting to build a mini-bot on its own, but the fact that they've designed a second bot, with a different strategy, using the same electrons it quite impressive. I hope if they attend a second regional, the GDC will reconsider and allow the use of both drivetrains.

[danshaffer]

Hmmmmmm
The intent of the rule seems to be that you can swap out your entire superstructure, as long as both superstructures fit within the rules.

The drivetrain (which in this game could qualify as a scoring robot in and of itself) should parallel: if you build a tank-drive and an ackerman and a swerve, you should be able to swap between the modules provided that they all fit on weight.

so now, what if you took superstructure A and put it on the tank, then decided to switch to superstructure B on the swerve? It's obviously a grey area.

[Alex Golec]

Battery cable, distribution block, fuse panel with one 20 amp fuse, the RC, a backup battery, and the associated wires to connect them.

For this year, add in a 51" high flagpole, a PWM cable that runs up to that flagpole, and bumpers that cover two-thirds of the perimeter of the robot, and you'll have yourself the bare minimum.

-Alex Golec

[dtengineering]

First of all, I'm personally just fine with leaving the rule as it is right now... or at least as it was before GDC's recent ruling. If a team can build two functional but totally different configurations and keep it within all weight limits and rules, then let them go for it. But since I have had plenty of space to express my opinions in that other thread, I'll now stick to the question at hand.

To achive the goal that FIRST appears to wish to achieve, I would simply add:

When considering multiple, removable mechanisms, at least x% of the mass of the robot must be common to all possible configurations.

I would suggest 30-40% would be a reasonable number for X. This fraction of the overall mass would represent "the robot". Thus a team could still designate what constituted the robot... and swap out drive bases, etc, but there would be some significant common core between all posible configurations.

Jason

[AdamHeard]

It's an awesome idea, and i love 1519 for doing it.


But a less risky approach would have been a common base;

The base would somehow switch between ackerman and tank drive with an arm.

That is more of a dual configuration that the intent of the rules seem to want. Rather than stretching the intent to two full robots.

[Stephen Kowski]

what 111 had in 2001 was something that would qualify here....these are two robots, pretty obvious to me: "I know it when I see it" -Associate Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Technically (if everyone wants to play that game) you could define it as one robot, and if I tried real hard there are a lot of things that I could define as a robot, but a lot of that wouldn't make it onto the field.

I give 1519 credit for trying (never know until you try) but this is not the first time someone has been burned after their robot is already built (Truck Town Thunder I'm looking your way) it is very disappointing for 1519 I'm sure.

Making new threads and going over it repeatedly isn't going to solve anything (look at some of the collaboration discussions for several years) just take the decision and move past. Remember that your time is a scarce resource.

good luck everyone