Old control box

[EricGoodchild]

Can we use the control box from last years robot and just
put the new DS and electronics in it.

[MrForbes]

I don't know, what do the rules say?

[keen101]

I don't know what you mean by "control box"

But, yeah pretty sure you can use anything that is either COTS, or custom made, so long as the cRIO and DS are the ones controlling the Disable/Autonomous features as well as the teleop mode.

In other words you probably can use whatever electronics you want so long as you do also use the cRIO and DS to control things.

[MrForbes]

I think the question is about reusing the box they made or used to house the control electronics last year. Without knowing if it was an unmodified COTS case, or a fabricated component, or whatever else it was, it's kind of hard to tell.

This is a good excuse to read the rules about material use in Section 8 and try to understand them. The flowchart helps. (make sure you have the latest revision of the rules, too)

The main reason I can't answer the question is because I haven't spent enough time studying this part of the rules myself, and would probably give the wrong answer based on what we could do last year...and a lot of things have changed since then

[EricH]

This is something that you will need to ask Q&A. Here's my reasoning (and it won't be easy to follow, because the rules aren't):

1. The definition of ROBOT: "A FIRST ROBOT is a remotely operated vehicle designed and built by a FIRST Robotic Competition team to perform specific tasks when competing in the 2009 competition “Lunacy.” The ROBOT must include all the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game – power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The ROBOT implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play the 2009 FRC game (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the field, or a ROBOT designed to play a different game, would not satisfy this definition)."

This specifies that the control system is a part of determining what is a robot.

2. "<R11-A> Exception: solely for the purposes of determining compliance with the weight and volume limitations, these items are NOT considered part of the ROBOT and are NOT included in the weight and volume assessment:
• ...
• The OPERATOR CONSOLE."

I read the above to mean that the operator console is part of the robot, except weight and volume checks.

3. However, materials for an operator console are not included in the cost accounting (<R22>).

So, it seems that the operator console is counted as part of the robot. After all, it is part of the control system. The wording of <R11-A> seems to indicate that its exceptions to <R11> are only for weight and volume. But the console isn't in the cost accounting.

Ask Q&A to be sure, but I think you'll need to rebuild the operator console this year. If it's unmodified COTS, you're fine, but if not, rebuild is your safest option.

[ScottOliveira]

We need more information about the control box. If it is not a COTS part then refer to rule R24.

<R24>
Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the Robot Build Season, teams are encouraged to think as much as they please about their ROBOTS. They may develop prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and conduct design exercises. Teams may gather all the raw stock materials and COTS COMPONENTS they want. But absolutely no final design, fabrication, or assembly of any elements intended for the final ROBOT is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation.
•
Example: A TEAM designs and builds a two-speed shifting transmission during the fall as a training exercise. When designing their competition ROBOT, they utilize all the design principles they learned. To optimize the transmission design for their ROBOT, they improve the transmission gear ratios and reduce the size, and build two new transmissions, and place them on the ROBOT. All parts of this process are permitted activities.
•
Example: The same TEAM realizes that the transmission designed and built in the fall perfectly fits their need for a transmission to drive the ROBOT arm. They build a copy of the transmission from the original design plans, and bolt it to the ROBOT. This would be prohibited, as the transmission – although fabricated during the competition season – was built from detailed designs developed prior to kick-off.
•
Example: A TEAM developed an omni-directional drive system for the 2008 competition. Over the summer they refined and improved the control software (written in C) to add copied large sections of unmodified code over into the control software of the new ROBOT (also written in C). This would be a violation of the schedule constraint, and would not be allowed.
•
Example: The same TEAM decides to use the LabView as their software environment for 2009. Following kickoff, they use the previously-developed C code as a reference for the algorithms and calculations required to implement their omni-directional control solution. Because they developed new LabView code as they ported over their algorithms, this would be permitted.
•
Example: A different team develops a similar solution during the fall, and plans to use the developed software on their competition ROBOT. After completing the software, they post it in a generally accessible public forum and make the code available to all teams. Because they have made their software generally available, under the terms of Rule <R65> it is considered COTS software and they can use it on their ROBOT.

Or you can reference the simpler explanation of rule R33.

<R33>
FABRICATED ITEMS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions shall not be used on ROBOTS in the 2009 competition.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by EricH

So, it seems that the operator console is counted as part of the robot. After all, it is part of the control system. The wording of <R11-A> seems to indicate that its exceptions to <R11> are only for weight and volume. But the console isn't in the cost accounting.

This ambiguity in the rules has been around for a couple of years. While I don't disagree with your analysis, I will point out that if that is true, all sorts of rules become ridiculous. Take power sources and distribution, for example: <R01>, <R43>, etc. are essentially impossible to fulfil, if the console is part of the robot.

I've got a hard time believing that that's what was intended (technical common sense and all that). All the same, you'd think that a clear, airtight definition of a robot might have been a useful thing to include.

[ScottOliveira]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

This ambiguity in the rules has been around for a couple of years. While I don't disagree with your analysis, I will point out that if that is true, all sorts of rules become ridiculous. Take power sources and distribution, for example: <R01>, <R43>, etc. are essentially impossible to fulfil, if the console is part of the robot.

I've got a hard time believing that that's what was intended (technical common sense and all that). All the same, you'd think that a clear, airtight definition of a robot might have been a useful thing to include.

I'm sure they try very hard to come up with good definitions, unfortunately given the wide variety of designs, etc, it can be near impossible to have an 'airtight' definition.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by ScottOliveira

I'm sure they try very hard to come up with good definitions, unfortunately given the wide variety of designs, etc, it can be near impossible to have an 'airtight' definition.

It would be nice if they came right out and said that the operator console was/wasn't part of the robot. Or that it did/didn't have to be built from scratch every year.

Give them some credit, though--this year's definition of robot is more airtight than last year's.

You're right, Tristan. I think that they need some independent review to help find and clarify this sort of thing. The problem is doing that and ensuring that no details leak.

[EricGoodchild]

k thanks