Define "ROBOT"

[Matt H.]

Originally Posted by ALIBI

Combine these with the following:

<R10> Robots entered into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition shall be fabricated and/or assembled from COMPONENTS, MECHANISMS and COTS items that are constructed from:

Items provided in the FIRST-supplied Kit Of Parts (or their exact REPLACEMENT PART)

Allowed additional parts and materials as defined in the rules, and in quantities consistent with the Budget Constraint rules (found in Section 8.3.3).

And:

MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts.

Does it say anywhere that you are not allowed to have two distinct drivetrain MECHANISMS?

To answer your question:

Each team will be permitted one and only one chassis consisting of a complete drivetrain, battery mount, RC and the manditory electrical components which will remain as one unit throughout and entire season without changes or modifications (changes to correct rule deficiencies will be permitted). This will be considered to be the ROBOT. In addition, teams will be permitted to add COMPONENTS, MECHANSIMS and COTS as well as any other required items (i.e. flag holder, standard bumpers, team number, etc.) to the ROBOT to meet the objectives for game play.

My overall point here, your two quotes along with <R10> and the definition of MECHANISM seem to support letting Team 1519 do what they tried to do. In order to outlaw their soluiton, you would need to add a new definition.

You are in essence defining a robot as a drive base then. Last year a team simply used ramps which folded out at the beginning of the match (no drive base) and were allowed to compete--should this not be allowed?

[hrbrendan]

They're basically looking for configurations where the individual pieces can be used together as an entire unit, or pieces can be taken off/swapped, no? It seems like their definition on this is seems to boil down to them not allowing separate components that can not be used together in any configuration.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by hrbrendan

They're basically looking for configurations where the individual pieces can be used together as an entire unit, or pieces can be taken off/swapped, no? It seems like their definition on this is seems to boil down to them not allowing separate components that can not be used together in any configuration.

2 manipulators could not necessarily be used together in any configuration either.... but let's try to keep that discussion in the other thread and keep this one to strictly definitions of "Robot"

[hrbrendan]

Correct, and if you tried to enter two manipulators by themselves you would probably run into this same problem. Compare that to two manipulators which can be used in interchangeably on the same primary base unit... you can tie all of the individual pieces together. The 'ROBOT' is the individual base unit, and any potential interchangeable parts.

[Kingofl337]

I'll take a stab... Back in the day teams would put the "robot" on the field and leave the mechanism in the pits and keep workign on it. But needed the robot on the field so they received points if their partner won.

I would think you would need at least the following.
- RC
- Radio
- Fuse Panel
- Main Breaker
- AB Distribution Block
- Team Color LED
- Battery
- (Based on this years rules) Bumpers
- The robot should be built robust enough to withstand impacts from
non-modular "robots"

[hrbrendan]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

You're now in the same discussion occurring here about what a robot is according to the current rules. Let's keep that discussion there please.

The OP started a thread called 'Define "ROBOT"', asking for a definition of a robot that would outlaw what a particular team came up with as their solution to this game. You just quoted my definition, along with its explanation, and told me it was in the wrong thread

[ALIBI]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

You are in essence defining a robot as a drive base then. Last year a team simply used ramps which folded out at the beginning of the match (no drive base) and were allowed to compete--should this not be allowed?

I was trying to answer the original question asked by InfernoX14 and looking at the GDC answer which talked about two chassis. I would certainly agree with you that the team that competed last year w/out a drive base should be able to compete. I could add another sentance: If a team chooses to forego a chassis/drivetrain during their inspection, please be aware that the team will not be permitted to add a chassis/drivetrain in the future.

I was trying make sure that the team would have to assemble something instead of just placing a box of stuff on the floor of the arena. I would not consider ramps that fold out and stay in place a box of stuff.