1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by squirrel

<devil's advocate>
//snip "looks like a robot" stuff//
</devil's advocate>

Jim, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the GDC can decide that this looks like 2 robots and therefore it is. What most are disputing is that the GDC accuses 1519 of lawyering, and then goes through extreme manipulations of the rules to prove their own point. If they had just said, "Nope. We never envisioned a team doing something like this, but now that it's done, we can't allow it because it is two robots. We admit that we didn't craft the rules carefully enough. If you had asked earlier, we would have made a rule to cover it. We're sorry, but you will have to decide between the two of your designs, and scrap the other."

[Woody1458]

My feeling in a nutshell

Does it break any rules - No (As far as I can tell they folllowed every rule)
Is it Creative - Yes (no doubt)
Did this team find a loophole - Yes (Deffinatly not intended, therefore a loophole)
Is this loophole an unfair advantage - No (Along with having twice the options, they have twice the robot to fix)
Did this team put less effort into their robot then an average team - No (Argueably more)
Should this robot be allowed - Yes

They found a creative, non abusive answer to GDC's problem and should be awarded for it not disregarded.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

This scenario is illegal because the two "mechanisms" together must make the weight limit--which is the limiting factor preventing teams from shipping 1000 robots and what made this such a design challenge for 1519. If your above scenario the sum of the masses of the two robots is well about 120lbs making it illegal. The two robots 1519 had weight 120lbs together.

I agree that squirrel's idea that we know what a robot looks like is flawed--such an approach encourages making the same first robot continuously rather than branching out and changing with time. I'm sure there is nothing innovative about every team building a 6wheel drive rectangular robot which is what your description would create a robot.

This is not correct according to my reading of the rules. Provided that you are reinspected after every time you make the modification only the weight of the parts you plan to use in the current configuration would count. For example when 1519 modified their robot by adding 30 lbs. of ballast did they weigh Fezzix + ballast + Speed Racer?? Of course not, they no longer planned on using Speed Racer so it was no longer weighed with the robot.

[Lil' Lavery]

The point of their statements about the bumpers was to say that bumpers must be attached at all times, but rather that there has to be a way for all the bumpers to be attached. Neither Fezzik nor Mach 6 could accept every bumper that 1519 sent to inspection at the same time. If you want to further discuss this rule, or <R09> (which I feel the intent is pretty clear on), with me, please do so via PM rather than murking up this thread.
Much applause to 1519 for their engineering feats.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by squirrel

That's true.

However, you have to start somewhere....not every term used in the rules is defined, and in fact we are encouraged: "When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule."

Engineering thinking, to me, is that two frames with drive motors and wheels and everything else (except electronics) constitutes two robots. Lawyer thinking is that since one of the robots does not have electronics at any given time, then there is only one legally defined robot.

I think the reasoning behind the decision is that they want us to make only one robot, although we are welcome to make different mechanisms to go on that robot to play the game in different ways.

I also think that the concept of a small robot with a bigger drive system and ball handing mechanism that can be put onto it quickly is excellent, and it would have been very neat to see this happen. But I also think the way to do it would be to have a small robot that had more added onto it, rather than having two different robots. As you say, the rules will probably be refined to make this more plain.

Jim,
You say the intent was for one robot that we put different manipulators on. Yet you still haven't defined what a robot is. That definition seems to imply a robot is defined by the drive train. Of course I can envision games where a modular drive train under a single manipulator would be beneficial. Kind of like this game. I mean, if that's the definition, then fine. But I could've sworn that the entire reason behind this year's extensive head ref training was complaints of too many "I calls'em like I sees'em" calls on the field. It seems a little silly to be falling back on that rhetoric for robot inspections just because the GDC doesn't have a better answer.

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Jim, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the GDC can decide that this looks like 2 robots and therefore it is. What most are disputing is that the GDC accuses 1519 of lawyering, and then goes through extreme manipulations of the rules to prove their own point. If they had just said, "Nope. We never envisioned a team doing something like this, but now that it's done, we can't allow it because it is two robots. We admit that we didn't craft the rules carefully enough. If you had asked earlier, we would have made a rule to cover it. We're sorry, but you will have to decide between the two of your designs, and scrap the other."

Yes. I wouldn't mind the answer near so much if they simply admitted that this was outside the scope of the current rules, since it obviously is. I find it rather disappointing that they instead decided to fall back on flimsy reasoning and themselves stretching rules as far as possible to cover the situation.

[StevenB]

Disclaimer: I, like many members of Team #1519, come from an FLL background, where there is a very clear definition of the robot, and switching out large attachments is common.

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Jim, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the GDC can decide that this looks like 2 robots and therefore it is.

I think some would argue that, at the least, the GDC needs to define what a robot is.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

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.

Originally Posted by BHS_STopping

I think that what may be a problem for the GDC, in this case, is that it is pretty difficult to create a clear-cut definition of a "robot" without being incredibly intricate or complicated. As we have seen many machines in competition, each robot holds its own unique, qualitative characteristics. Even though the GDC has not yet established a comprehensive definition of a "robot," it appears to me that currently, a robot must consist of any and all required components specified in the rulebook. As was stated before, a cardboard box with a robot controller, a flag holder, and a few other items could be considered a robot. In practice, however, "common sense" would dictate that such a thing really isn't a robot. Such a thing, however, is legal, although I severely doubt it would pass inspection in such a state.

Here's where I see the problem with the GDC's ruling. Suppose some team builds one drive base with two arm configurations - basically the example given in the rules. The team is not expected to put both configurations on the robot at once, or for that to even be possible (see <R12>) This would be legal, although the robot might look very different from round to round. To an observer, this might look like two robots.

Now suppose a team builds one arm and two drive bases, one a strong pusher and the other a mecanum drive. There is no one main frame that could be called "the robot". Does that make this two robots, or is each drive base simply a mechanism that provides specific functionality (locomotion, in this case)? Is the team swapping bases on their robot, or swapping their arm onto different robots? Without a definition of robot other than "anything that passes inspection", it's impossible to say.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I think we need to step back a little and not get so emotional about the GDC response. Take it for what it is on the surface. They are attempting to make a difficult ruling (I know it is difficult for me) and as they are the authors of the document in question they are trying to explain their decision based on what they thought they wrote. I think the implication is this... a robot is a structure that can stand on it's own and drive on it's own without the addition or moving of other parts. Anything that can be added to increase a robot's abilities are attachments. I think we can all see that an RC is not a robot, a drive base is not a robot, an electronics board is not a robot. However, a drive base with electronics and RC can be a robot. I also would not dwell on the lawyering statement. The GDC has asked us not to read into what is written. Take it for what it is, on the surface. There is no hidden meaning, no decipherable advantage or game hint. I believe the GDC is just reminding us to look at the rules for what they are.
I do want to point out that in my opinion, Team 1519 is trying to approach this matter in a very gracious and proffessional manner. I believe they are doing so not only for their own cause but for all of us, to allow some additional creativity. Sorry it didn't turn out for you guys, let us know if we can be of any help.

[Brandon Holley]

What annoys me most is this....


If speed racer was simply the drive train of fezzik, and you could remove fezzik when you wanted to to keep only speed racer as your robot, I feel this would be allowed...

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.

So if fezzik were simply an outer "mechanism" it would be allowed and we would see fezzik and speed racer competing....

If you made 8 1 foot sections of bumper you could cover the bumper requirements of both the large and small configurations.




The response to me sounded like they were saying you are trying to bend the rules and I think thats outrageous. I think you guys did a great job trying to be creative and its sad to see that because of some wording of rules this isn't allowed.

[ALIBI]

I am a convert and have changed my mind. There is no definition of ROBOT. There is a definition of MECHANISM. Drive base "A" is a MECHANISM and drive base "B" is a MECHANISM. What is a ROBOT if it is not a combination of fabricated COMPONENTS, MECHANISMS and COTS items <R10>? 1519 demonstrated that they could comply with <R11>. <R12> refers to ROBOT weight. The example illustrates one possible sollution to determine the total weight of all of a ROBOT's various possible playing configurations. 1519 demonstrated that they could comply with <R12>. They do have a slightly different approach than the example, however, the example is only an illustration of one way to approach <R12>. How in the world does 1519 violate <R114>? Each playing configuration was indeed a subset of all the COMPONENTS, MECHANISMS and COTS presented at inspection. It seems as though they took great pains to insure that they complied. If 1519 believed that <R08>, while I think this is a weak argument by the GDC, was the problem, I am certain that they could have come up with segmented bumpers for the larger drivetrain with 2/3rd's covered and made the smaller drivetrain a little larger and 100% covered. I have not done any lawyering of the rules to come up with this solution. 1519 worked within the rules as they were presented. Perhaps if they had asked questions earlier, rules would have been written to prevent them from doing exactly what the rules stated. What would be wrong with a team calling their robot Super Speedy when they did not have a manipulator attached and Super Hurdler when they did? Two names do not make two robots. My thanks go out to all who helped me come to this conclusion, there are just too many in this thread and others to quote.

EDIT: Another comment on bumpers, suppose a team has a speed bot that they cover 100% with bumpers. When they add their manipulator, they leave he front bumper off for clearance. The only solution is to never put the front bumper on the speed bot. Seems a little contrary to the intent of the bumpers.

[Racer26]

One interesting point I haven't seen brought up is that the rules state that ALL "PLAYING CONFIGURATIONS" as defined in the rules, must fall within the 120lb limit combined. 1519 did this.

The argument here appears to be whether Fezzik and Speed Racer are two ROBOTs or two MECHANISMs.

Sure, a team can build one drive base, and have two interchangeable manipulators, in fact, I would argue that this is the INTENT of the rule.

How is it any different for a team to build one manipulator with electronics attached, and a modular drivebase, allowing for a configuration change from perhaps a Track based drivetrain, to a swerve drivetrain, for example?

If those are no different, how is 1519s design of a singular ELECTRONICS board (which to me is the ROBOT, I'll explain this view in a second), with a multiplicity of MANIPULATORs and DRIVE BASEs as long as in ALL playing configurations, it meets the appropriate rules, and their COMBINED weight meets 120lbs.

My view that a ROBOT is constituted primarily by the RC, Radio, and Battery is this. Consider a human. We have a brain, and a body. We can lose many parts of our body (See: quadrapalegics (sp?)) and still function, but if we lose our BRAIN, we cease to exist, for all intents and purposes.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I think we need to step back a little and not get so emotional about the GDC response. Take it for what it is on the surface. They are attempting to make a difficult ruling (I know it is difficult for me) and as they are the authors of the document in question they are trying to explain their decision based on what they thought they wrote. I think the implication is this... a robot is a structure that can stand on it's own and drive on it's own without the addition or moving of other parts. Anything that can be added to increase a robot's abilities are attachments. I think we can all see that an RC is not a robot, a drive base is not a robot, an electronics board is not a robot. However, a drive base with electronics and RC can be a robot. I also would not dwell on the lawyering statement. The GDC has asked us not to read into what is written. Take it for what it is, on the surface. There is no hidden meaning, no decipherable advantage or game hint. I believe the GDC is just reminding us to look at the rules for what they are.
I do want to point out that in my opinion, Team 1519 is trying to approach this matter in a very gracious and proffessional manner. I believe they are doing so not only for their own cause but for all of us, to allow some additional creativity. Sorry it didn't turn out for you guys, let us know if we can be of any help.

Al,
I believe the frustration and annoyance with the GDC ruling is that it doesn't really clarify anything. The robot definition you present is clear and enforceable. From my point of view it's a little arbitrary, but I don't mean that as a strike against it, as the whole issue is kinda murky and a simple declaration of "This is a robot" would at least clear things up. Unfortunately, that definition appears exactly nowhere in the rule book or the Q&A. You suggest we shouldn't read anything into the rules, but you have just done so yourself to come up with that definition. The entire problem here is that we have no choice but to read into the rules and try to divine what the GDC's definition of a robot actually means. They've even added an entirely new term that they've failed to define, "basic robot structure". This only ever appears in the rules in a specific example applied to a specific team robot concept. Otherwise it's used as if we already know exactly what it means. The ROBOT term is similarly used. 1519 has rather effectively pointed out that there's no real guidance on what the heck a ROBOT consists of, and the GDC has effectively stuck their fingers in their ears.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

1519 has rather effectively pointed out that there's no real guidance on what the heck a ROBOT consists of...

Which is a good thing, right? because we don't want them to tell us what a robot is, because doing so could stifle our creativity.

One thing is kind of obvious from the ruling, though....if you build two robots, you'll only be allowed to enter one of them into the competition.

Whatever it is that a robot might be in the eyes of the GDC, 1519 built two of them. When I look at the picture of Mach 6 sitting next to Fezzik, I can easily agree with them. When folks talk about what-ifs with different drive bases and mechanisms and whatnot, then we get into a gray area. 1519 did not do a what-if, they built two robots, and apparently they realize it, sadly a bit late.

The rules are vague about what constitutes a robot, but if you use your common sense judgement, do you see one or two robots?

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by squirrel

The rules are vague about what constitutes a robot, but if you use your common sense judgement, do you see one or two robots?

I completely agree with you on this one. If i didn't know anything about the rules i would look at the picture and think, "that's two different robots."
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck: it's a duck.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by squirrel

The rules are vague about what constitutes a robot, but if you use your common sense judgement, do you see one or two robots?

While it is clearly obvious that there are 2 separate machines there, at a competition, only 1 of them will ever be operating at a time and combined they fit the requirements needed (minus the bumpers).

Not go get into teh what-if game, but what if speed racer in its down time was simply strapped to fezzik....so when presented it was one whole system basically speed racer is acting as a ballast and thats all, just added weight.

Speed racer has on its person the electronics battery and you name it. Now as per rule r114 they would be able to remove the system of fezzik and leave speed racer on the floor.

To me its the fact they are still able to fairly easily implement their design by doing some simple solutions and adhering to the rules. What they did could be done within the rules.

While I am still on the fence on this whole situation, I see both sides to this argument and you brought up a good point squirrel..

[MrForbes]

I agree that they would only have one robot on the field at a time, but unfortunately R09 allows a team to enter only one robot into the competition.