1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by squirrel

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.

My counter argument would be that they are only putting a part of their robot on the field at a time, however I am not a lawyer so I am not going down that road...

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by squirrel

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?

Jim,
I say I can't answer your question without looking closer at the mechanisms. Would you call a 57 Chevy sans engine and transmission a car? Would you call a PC case without a motherboard or CPU a computer? Would you call this:

A intelligent chess playing robot?
What about if you then saw this:

If you're really trying to tell me that appearances are everything, then I have some Iron Pyrite to sell you at the bargain price of $500 per troy ounce.

[MrForbes]

Appearances are not everything, but they do count a lot. I called my 55 Chevy a car when I bought it, it had no engine or interior. I call some of my old computers without motherboards computers, but not all of them....computer inventory at my house is interesting! (last count was around 100) I have seen the chess player before, so I knew what was in the box. I don't buy gold chunks, so I would not buy pyrite chunks.

Sorry if I'm just trying to be reasonable here.....

[Racer26]

I don't know, but I'm still of the opinion that despite that the GDC says different that this is PRECISELY the type of design that rule (the multiple mechs as long as they stay within 120lbs rule) was intended to produce, and 1519 is one of the first teams that had the cojones to actually do it... That rule has been there for multiple years, and I have yet to see any team actually utilize it.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I don't know, but I'm still of the opinion that despite that the GDC says different that this is PRECISELY the type of design that rule (the multiple mechs as long as they stay within 120lbs rule) was intended to produce

Hmmmm....despite the fact that they say otherwise, you believe this is what they want? I won't go into that any further, but.....

Think about last year's game, the two main scoring opportunities were with an arm that hung tubes on, or with a ramp to park other robots on. That was a great opportunity to have two mechanisms that could be changed. Unbolt the arm, bolt on the ramp, you've completely changed your game plan, but still have the same robot under it all. 1519 has to replace the whole robot to change game plans.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by squirrel

...Unbolt the arm, bolt on the ramp, you've completely changed your game plan, but still have the same robot under it all. 1519 has to replace the whole robot to change game plans.

I still don't see anything in the rules to justify how you're using the word "robot". You obviously have your own idea of what a "robot" is, independent of what the rules say (or fail to say).

Would you accept a team that designed a robot with a replaceable drivebase? Unbolt the tank drive module and bolt on the Mecanum drive module. Your comment about "same robot under it all" would seem to reject this as a valid option, but there's nothing in the rules making it illegal so far as I can tell.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by squirrel

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.

That a team is only allowed to enter one robot is absolutely clear. However, whenever I read Rule R09 in the past, I really didn't think it was intended to avoid the modular (dual-configuration) robot design we built. My perspective on the intent of Rule R09 was that if a team wants to enter two different robots (i.e. two different constructions that separately meet the size, weight, and other rule constraints) that team needs to enter the tournament twice as two different teams (i.e. pay two registration fees.) In other words, it's not like the US Ski Team sending athletes to the Olympics where multiple skiers enter and compete at the same time, all as part of one team.

Originally Posted by squirrel

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. ... they (1519) built two robots, and apparently they realize it, sadly a bit late.

Jim, I must confess that I'm a bit puzzled by the last part of the above statement, "apparently they realize it." Is the implication that we agree with the GDC's ruling?

Just for the record, I do fully understand that the GDC sees our solution as being two robots, rather than one. I also think I understand how they can reasonably arrive at that perspective apart from the rules -- just look at the photo -- it sure looks like two robots!

However, I still believe that we have built a valid dual-configuration robot, that does indeed look like two robots. Much of the reason that it looks like two robots is that the some of the fundamental requirements of an effective hurdling capability (strong, stable, and heavy to lift a 7-pound, 40-inch ball) and an effective lap-running capability (small and light) are radically opposed to one another. I do not agree with the GDC ruling on the matter, but in the spirit of gracious professionalism and the fact that the GDC are the official rule-interpreters, we're not going to further contest their decision. (It doesn't matter for us at this point anyway, as our FRC 2008 season is completed, since we've attended the one and only official FRC tournament we are registered for this year.)

That said, I'm still prickling at the last paragraph of the official GDC response, as we were by no means attempting to cheat by lawyering interpretations or finding a loophole. Rather, we were trying to come up with an approach to constructing a design that allowed us to have the choice of either effective hurdling or effective lap-running on a match-by-match basis. (We would have preferred to have one configuration that could do both, but one of the essential aspects of the effective lap-running of the Speed Racer is that it be very narrow in order to drive through gaps that a full-size robot couldn't dream of negotiating.)

My silence on the matter since the GDC ruling is not because I agree with their perspective on our "lawyering interpretations" but because I thought it best to be slow to speak when I might be tempted to become angry by what appeared to be an implied accusation of intentional cheating.

We were by no means trying to cheat the system and field "two robots" as one robot. We made major tradeoffs in the last week in order to have the dual-configuration robot make weight. In the last weekend we needed to re-design the frame of Speed Racer to accommodate design changes in the electronics board as well as further reduce weight involving taking out over a quarter of the frame members. (Yes, the frame of Speed Racer was completely taken apart and rebuilt the weekend prior to ship.) Nearly every component on the electronics board was placed in a position that was less desirable for one of the configurations because of requirements for the other configuration. Our bumpers were built and re-built numerous times in order to have the shared bumper between configurations as well as make the 15.0 pound aggregate bumper weight limit. Our software and operator interface required compromises in order to support both configurations that would not have been required for either configuration for two separate robots. In short, there was hardly a single part of either robot configuration that was not in some way affected by the dual-configuration approach.

We worked very hard to make one robot which could fulfill two wildly different sets of operational requirements and satisfy the rules. The GDC response really seems to imply that we just tried to utilize a loophole to easily field two robots as one robot and that we completely lack common sense. To me, that implication is what hurts more than their decision to disallow our design. By no means were we trying to "build and bring two robots that fit the criteria of one robot" -- we really were trying to build and bring one robot that could be deployed in radically different configurations. I think we succeeded in satisfying the rules; the GDC says we didn't and implies (via the last paragraph of their response) that we had mal-intent in trying to do so.

Nonetheless, we respect their decision and will abide by it, even if we don't agree with their decision or the tone of their response.

[Brandon Holley]

Ken,

Like I said in my earlier post, I do believe that you guys had absolutely no intention of "lawyering" the rules at all.

Make sure your team is proud of what they did, it sure is an accomplishment regardless of what happened competition wise.

Stand tall guys, we'll be expecting both speed racer and fezzik at the beantown blitz this year! (and you can bet your bottom dollar we'll let you compete)

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I still don't see anything in the rules to justify how you're using the word "robot". You obviously have your own idea of what a "robot" is, independent of what the rules say (or fail to say).

Yes, I do have my own idea of what a robot is. I expect that you do too. And the rules don't say whether or not my idea is right or wrong, or whether or not your idea is right or wrong. I think that's the point. You have to actually think about what a robot is, and come to some reasonable conclusion. Unfortuntely Ken came to a different conclusion than the GDC did.

And Ken, I understand that you don't agree with the ruling, but I also get the idea that you can see what they mean about you having two robots.

I also don't think the GDC was implying mal-intent or complete lack of common sense on your part, but I can see why you think so. You had a really neat idea, but it turns out that implementing it as you did gives the appearance of trying to circumvent the rules. As I mentioned before, if you had somehow incorporated the small drive base into the big robot, it would most likely have been acceptable.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by squirrel

1519 has to replace the whole robot

I've been going back and forth on this a whole bunch, but I think we've finally got this pinned down. ROBOT is not clearly defined in the manual. Some folks take the "looks like a duck" approach, others take the FLL (robot = brain) approach. This is the whole problem that we're having. Since ROBOT is ill-defined, and since a reasonable person could consider the RC and its related electronics to be a robot, 1519 has satisfied the rules as written in the current revision of the manual.

This Q&A response seems to me to be a sort of concession from the GDC that even if a team is breaking their ideas for the spirit of the game, it's really the letter of the rules that counts. Regardless of what we (the community and the GDC) think a ROBOT ought to be, the manual tells us that 1519 could reasonably be considered to have showed up with one ROBOT.

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

Just for the record, I do fully understand that the GDC sees our solution as being two robots, rather than one. I also think I understand how they can reasonably arrive at that perspective apart from the rules -- just look at the photo -- it sure looks like two robots!

I wasn't at the unveiling, but I'm pretty sure the picture is of two robots. They each have their own electrical and control system, and can move independently. Thus, I understand why bringing both to inspection would get the immediate reaction of "this is two robots". Why should the removal of one robot's electronics make two robots into one?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by squirrel

Yes, I do have my own idea of what a robot is. I expect that you do too. And the rules don't say whether or not my idea is right or wrong, or whether or not your idea is right or wrong. I think that's the point.

(I do wish you'd answer the question about modular drivebases. It would give a lot more insight into how you're coming to the conclusion you do.)

I indeed have an idea of what a robot is, in the context of this year's FRC game. It's just that my idea of what makes something a robot in that context is based on the rules of this year's FRC game. Thus the rules do say whether my idea is right or wrong.

And I think that is the point. There is certainly room for disagreement outside the rules, but it is clear to me (and to many others, obviously) that 1519's extreme dual configuration is not ruled out.

Unfortunately for 1519, their design has been declared illegal by fiat, outside the rules. The GDC's only straightforward references to the rules look like circular logic to me, and the other references are vague at best, but the end result is unavoidable. Apparently the GDC considers a robot to consist of a drivebase plus other mechanisms. Unless they change their mind, I expect something to that effect to appear in the manual for next year's game.

[Bochek]

just a thought here. Not sure if it has been covered by anyone else, or have i re-read through all the rules that would cover this but....

If your starting configuration had the smaller robot sitting ontop of the larger one, and somehow you drove it off the larger one. and left it sitting in the home zone. Now you have one robot (starting configuration)

When you wanted to use the larger bot, you just would not place the smaller one on it, you just removed a mechanism right?

Just a thought.

- Bochek

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Bochek

just a thought here. Not sure if it has been covered by anyone else, or have i re-read through all the rules that would cover this but....

If your starting configuration had the smaller robot sitting ontop of the larger one, and somehow you drove it off the larger one. and left it sitting in the home zone. Now you have one robot (starting configuration)

When you wanted to use the larger bot, you just would not place the smaller one on it, you just removed a mechanism right?

Just a thought.

- Bochek

This would break one of the other rules about littering the field/detaching parts of your robot mid-match.

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by Bochek

If your starting configuration had the smaller robot sitting ontop of the larger one, and somehow you drove it off the larger one. and left it sitting in the home zone. Now you have one robot (starting configuration)

When you wanted to use the larger bot, you just would not place the smaller one on it, you just removed a mechanism right?
- Bochek

This would be illegal, per <G44>:

<G44> Detaching MECHANISMS - ROBOTS may not intentionally detach parts or leave multiple mechanisms on the TRACK.

For those saying bolting Speed Racer onto Fezzik would make it legal, why? <R12> explicitly states:

...each manipulator being a quick attach / detach device such that either one or the other (but not both) may be part of the ROBOT at the beginning of a MATCH.