M12 and Q12 -- do they really mean this?

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson at 1/11/2001 9:44 PM EST


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.



Q12. With regard to the 130lb weight limit and rule
M12, do all of the
subsystems have to be on the robot when the robot
weight is checked or
may we check the robot weight several times in
different configurations?

A12. As long as each configuration meets the size and
weight requirements,
then it is ok. Therefore, it may be necessary for
several trips to the scale
and sizing box, but you have more flexibility in your
robot design
possibilities. For the purpose of the Featherweight in
the Finals award, we
will consider the heaviest configuration of the robot.


This seems like a very big loop hole. Suppose that at
team put their battery and their electronics on a
removeable tray.

Could that team claim that that tray was their robot
and that the rest of the robot was simply a
"configuration" of their robot?

In this way, a team could have several robots, one for
each type of situation they may face. Once they get
their alliance partners, the could pick the best
robot... er ah... "configuration" install this
"configuration" around their electronics tray... er
ah... "robot" and off they would go to the #1 seed slot.

It seems far fetched, but it is not as far out as it
may seem. On the bus back from Dean's I was involved
in a serious discussion about whether just such a
possibility would have allowed a team to have a
"scoring arm" in last year's seeding rounds and then
also allow the team to have an "enforcer" for the
finals. The consensus on the bus was that such a team
would have to weigh in with all arms on the robot, then
they could play with either. But... the current rules
for this year do not seem to prevent this.

Comments?

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker at 1/11/2001 10:21 PM EST


Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: M12 and Q12 -- do they really mean this?
Posted by Joe Johnson on 1/11/2001 9:44 PM EST:



This loophole is sure tempting to jump through.

But, we can't just add an arm at the end of debug... all configurations must be thought of now and implemented as the design takes shape.

It's hard enought to just get a working robot, let alone one that is re-configurable.

It sure would be a peach, though, wouldn't it? This would take the same amount of guts that the monkeys had last year.

I can imagine the pre-match planning now:

"Johnny, you get the big ball gripper, and I'll take out the robo-ramp... who know's what we'll use this round!"

Yet another log to put on the fire.

Andy B.