Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?

[Ken Stafford]

Wow—what a controversy! I guess it’s time we rolled in with a few clarifying remarks… Regarding “why” we chose such a strategy: every FRC team eventually develops an identity, whether it be incredibly robust KISS robots, amazing effective offensive machines, awesome driver teams, blow-you-away manufacturing quality and appearance…just as there is no “right” team demographic/organization, there is no “right” team vision other than to meet the needs of the students. Those who know Team 190 well will probably agree that the team’s vision is not to be super competitive—in fact I’d argue that we have won fewer tournaments than any other legacy team. The team motto is actually “WOW over WIN”. Due to our unusual 2-year high school, our team complement is always over 50% rookies—a good situation for ambitious innovation, a poor situation for evolved, mature designs/driver crews.

We started this season with 2 competing designs, an uber-fast speed-bot and a reasonably conventional hurdler. Neither satisfied the team’s desire to be “out-of-the-box”. When our 2 youngest team members suggested our current strategy it immediately appealed to the team. We were worried about the legality of it and especially the tendency (as in 2K5) for the GDC to modify/clarify rules during the season to meet their expectations. We thoroughly researched all the potential issues and kept close track of the developing trends through the Q&A and updates. We had a fall-back position in case the strategy became unviable. The more we developed the design, the more convinced we became that it would be legal, especially after Team 2158 received an “ok” to their question…but VERY HARD to accomplish. It required several design features that we had never seen in FRC robots of past.

We were prepared to support the legality of the design and methodology to comply with the intent and words of all the rules (including G-22) when we arrived at the Granite State Regional. We were pleased when it was approved there by members of the GDC, senior FIRST staff, and the referees. The fact that it has now been twice-inspected, twice-approved, and, in fact, twice-awarded (Rockwell Innovation in Control, GSR; Xerox Creativity, SVR) for exactly this strategy and execution serves only to confirm our position.

Contrary to perhaps some opinions, this effort was not about breaking/”lawyering” the rules, but rather being innovative both in design and strategy (frankly at the expense of being particularly competitive). Rather than build a perfect Toyota, we chose to build an Audi…

The team is rightfully proud of this robot and we are not finished competing with it (or tweaking it for that matter!)—see you in Atlanta.

Go FIRST!

Ken Stafford
Team Leader
FRC #190
WPI/Mass Academy