YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

[JamesCH95]

This issue is very simple:

The robot must be weighed in with ALL modular components.
The motor is merely another modular component, making 4 components in total (drive chassis, two functionality comonents, and one motor component)
The robot passes weight with all modular comoponets accounted for.
It's legal!

[Kevin Sevcik]

<R06> The maximum allowed weight of all robot configuration components combined is 130.0 pounds (58.97 kg). At the time of weigh in, the basic robot platform and any additional items that might be used in different configurations of the robot must be weighed together. Weight limit includes (one) 12V battery, control system, decorations, bumpers, and any other attached parts.

Example: A team has decided to design its robot such that, before any given match, it may quickly change the configuration of the robot based on perceived strengths or weaknesses of an opponent team's robot. The team accomplished this by constructing its robot as a basic drive train platform plus two versions of a ball gripper, each gripper being a quick attach / detach device such that either one or the other gripper may be part of the robot at the beginning of a match. Their robot's platform weighs 120 lb, version A of the gripper weighs 6 lb, and version B weighs 8 lb. Although only one version will be on the robot during a match, both must be on the weight scale along with the robot platform during weigh in. This would result in a rejection of
the robot because its total weight comes to 134 lb.

So here's the entire relevant section. Emphasis mine. The weight is all attached parts. If you've attached the other motor it's now and attached part. Period.

I've included the example because it gives some insight into the intent here. The rule makers were obviously expecting multiple configurations to be used strategically and before a match. Time is a definite factor here. By attaching the second motor, the team quite definitely gains a benefit. They save the time it would take to detach it and reattach it. If it takes even 5 minutes, it is important, because the time between the finals matches is very short anyways.

Intent does matter if you have something to base it on and some insight into it, I think.

EDIT: It also says all configuration components. Nothing about different configurations, etc. I'll also put out here that attaching the second drill motor to the 2nd assembly makes that motor a component of that system. and it's obviously a different component than the original motor.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

" 2) Explain to us why these two modules constitute "different configurations" as there exists no robot configuration in which both motors are used simultaneously. Here's a leading question for you: Isn't it true that enforcing/interpreting this rule here is nothing more than nitpicking, penalizing creative thinking that does not disadvantage other teams on the battlefield to even a small degree?"

Tristan,
I am pretty sure you just agreed with me in that last sentence. Reread your post and think about it again.

Jonathon,
The two modules are different configurations because that is how the "what if" was presented. There is no configuration in which both motors are used just as there are no configurations in which both arms are used. Hence my support of the 2003 rules where only the most heavy configuration be weighed. Since the rule changed, my design strategy had to. Remember the "virtual team" in question brought two attachments to be inspected but only one of them was complete. Don't look at this from the standpoint that is your robot, instead look at it from the standpoint of all the other teams at the competition who weighed in with fully functional attachments and passed inspection at < or= to 130lb..

[jonathan lall]

Okay, now we are actually getting somewhere. Though I love how everybody assumes that I am of the same opinion as Tristan even though I never stated my position on this. I just broke down the core of his argument for everyone to take shots at, and somehow (as I suspected might happen) I'm grouped with him due to a similarity in last names. I'm asking others to articulate why Tristan is wrong using written rules; as an inspector or mentor, there is no way I would let this go, but my bias means next to nothing, as does that of everybody else on this forum. That's why I asked for objective explanation. Luckily, I don't take offense to being labelled a lawyer; perhaps I take comfort in the fact that attorneys have much higher average IQs than professional engineers.

Marc, I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, but you are simply wrong in your point about the appeal to authority. I was pointing out that it was a fallacy in logic (argumentum ad verecundiam) to use the rule writer's intent as an extension of the rules. Dave has the potential to have the exact same knowledge as you or I of what the rules say, which is what is important. You don't help yourself by quoting "Based on the 2004 Robot Rules, YOU MAKE THE CALL", since you're definitely not following your own advice here.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

I agree with Al, the weight you play at is the weight you should weigh at. If you can play in more than one configuration, you must weight less than 130lbs in all configurations.


Wetzel

I have mixed feelings on this. I agree that the weight you play at is the weight you should weigh in at, but I think the spirit of this year's rule was to put a cap on possible configurations, rather than leaving virtually unlimited potential function. Modular design is an increasingly popular trend, and I believe the rules this year were designed to prevent any one team from essentially building multiple robots. I think it's cool to see a robot with a modular arm which can alternate from ball manipulation to hanging, based on strategy. However, a robot with a standard base and multiple toppings (say, two small ball handlers, a 2x ball grabber, and a hanger) all as separate "functions" is a bit over the top. While technologically cool, in the legal sense each topping could be considered a different robot with different functions. The spirit of this year's ruling was to prevent this. All configurations must be weighed together to total no more than 130lbs.

To answer the original question, by the letter of the law, and from my experience as an inspector, I'd have to rule the second motor illegal if it tops the 130 pound limit. The rules clearly state the robot must not weigh more than 130lbs in ALL possible configurations, even if it's just one more motor. Otherwise, robots could be nickel and dimed up to more weight- if you can add an extra motor on the alternate configuration why not add another motor to another function if it's only a little over the limit.

Regarding the spare part issue- a spare part must be identical in form and function to the original part it would potentially replace. If it has different properties or different functions, it's not a spare, and would have to weigh in as an alternate configuration, which by this past season's rules, would have to be weighed in as part of the whole robot.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

I have mixed feelings on this. I agree that the weight you play at is the weight you should weigh in at, but I think the spirit of this year's rule was to put a cap on possible configurations, rather than leaving virtually unlimited potential function. Modular design is an increasingly popular trend, and I believe the rules this year were designed to prevent any one team from essentially building multiple robots. I think it's cool to see a robot with a modular arm which can alternate from ball manipulation to hanging, based on strategy. However, a robot with a standard base and multiple toppings (say, two small ball handlers, a 2x ball grabber, and a hanger) all as separate "functions" is a bit over the top. While technologically cool, in the legal sense each topping could be considered a different robot with different functions. The spirit of this year's ruling was to prevent this. All configurations must be weighed together to total no more than 130lbs.

To answer the original question, by the letter of the law, and from my experience as an inspector, I'd have to rule the second motor illegal if it tops the 130 pound limit. The rules clearly state the robot must not weigh more than 130lbs in ALL possible configurations, even if it's just one more motor. Otherwise, robots could be nickel and dimed up to more weight- if you can add an extra motor on the alternate configuration why not add another motor to another function if it's only a little over the limit.

Regarding the spare part issue- a spare part must be identical in form and function to the original part it would potentially replace. If it has different properties or different functions, it's not a spare, and would have to weigh in as an alternate configuration, which by this past season's rules, would have to be weighed in as part of the whole robot.

Marc gets it, exactly. His understanding of both the specific wording and intent of the rules is correct. I respectfully suggest everyone read his message thoroughly.

As defined in the original problem statement, Redabot is illegal and in violation of the weight constraint.

-dave

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Just out of curiosity, Aaron, since only one drill motor is installed at inspection-time, and it meets weight limits at that time, why wouldn't it pass the inspection? You state "I would have to say it would not pass the inspection", but there is nothing at inspection-time that would constitute an illegal part or mechanism.

Tristan,
I would say it does not pass inspection since it is a not fully assembled attachment. It is not in the form at which it will compete and therefore cannot be weighed until complete. As an inspector I would ask that assy be finished and weighed or the team decide to leave the attachment in the pit and not use it during competition.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Tristan,
I would say it does not pass inspection since it is a not fully assembled attachment. It is not in the form at which it will compete and therefore cannot be weighed until complete. As an inspector I would ask that assy be finished and weighed or the team decide to leave the attachment in the pit and not use it during competition.

Al are you saying that if the 2nd assembly does not have a motor attached then it is not a functioning piece so that it cannot be used. I do not see a problem with the motor being used on both assemblies as long as it is transfered. If you weighed the robot after changing the motors there would be no weight difference. I am not sure of that part of the rule, if there is one, so could you
help me out a bit with this.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Al are you saying that if the 2nd assembly does not have a motor attached then it is not a functioning piece so that it cannot be used. I do not see a problem with the motor being used on both assemblies as long as it is transfered. If you weighed the robot after changing the motors there would be no weight difference. I am not sure of that part of the rule, if there is one, so could you
help me out a bit with this.

Steve,
The intent is to have all assemblies and basic robot that are used for competition weigh in less than 130. If one of the assemblies is incomplete it is not in the form which will compete. If the motor used for both attachments, were part of the basic robot then it would pass. I know that sounds a little contradictory, but the team did/could have had that chance. Moving a motor from one assembly to another to make weight does not fit into the rules in my opinion.
As a team that has competed with attachments in the past, the change in rules in 2004 made a change in our design strategy.
I need to add here that the 130 lb. weight limit is one which allows two (athletic) students and/or adults to get the robot on the field and I support that. Additional attachments that make a robot more than 130 is pushing the envelope of safe handling and I must be against that.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Steve,
The intent is to have all assemblies and basic robot that are used for competition weigh in less than 130. If one of the assemblies is incomplete it is not in the form which will compete. If the motor used for both attachments, were part of the basic robot then it would pass. I know that sounds a little contradictory, but the team did/could have had that chance. Moving a motor from one assembly to another to make weight does not fit into the rules in my opinion.
As a team that has competed with attachments in the past, the change in rules in 2004 made a change in our design strategy.
I need to add here that the 130 lb. weight limit is one which allows two (athletic) students and/or adults to get the robot on the field and I support that. Additional attachments that make a robot more than 130 is pushing the envelope of safe handling and I must be against that.

In understand the 130 lb weight limit. I agree that 2003 had a better rule. I also saw robots weighed in with all extra parts even though they were not complete. My belief, which is not law, was that the total weight of all pieces would weigh in at 130. In the above case there is only one motor being used. does it matter which assembly it is on. The team must remove it from one and use it on the other so it is really not a set on either assembly. In Tristan's case there are 2 motors involved which is wrong.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Steve W

In understand the 130 lb weight limit. I agree that 2003 had a better rule. I also saw robots weighed in with all extra parts even though they were not complete. My belief, which is not law, was that the total weight of all pieces would weigh in at 130. In the above case there is only one motor being used. does it matter which assembly it is on. The team must remove it from one and use it on the other so it is really not a set on either assembly. In Tristan's case there are 2 motors involved which is wrong.

Steve,
There were robots that weighed in with unassembled attachments. Those teams in most cases were not sure whether they were going to use the attachments or not. We told those teams that officially, if they made changes in the completed assemblies they were required to weigh in a second or third time to insure all competition parts were weighed in total. To my knowledge the teams complied with that request. There is a point that GP must enter into the game and I fully expect participants to reweigh when changes are made. Teams expect that their alliance partners and opponents are legal to compete.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Steve,
There were robots that weighed in with unassembled attachments. Those teams in most cases were not sure whether they were going to use the attachments or not. We told those teams that officially, if they made changes in the completed assemblies they were required to weigh in a second or third time to insure all competition parts were weighed in total. To my knowledge the teams complied with that request. There is a point that GP must enter into the game and I fully expect participants to reweigh when changes are made. Teams expect that their alliance partners and opponents are legal to compete.

At the UTC regional the inspectors performed "spot checks" on random robots on their way out of a match. The weight/size stations were setup relatively close to the field access ramp, so throughout the day Friday and Saturday, robots were periodically "pulled over" for an on the spot weight check. This essentially prevented mechanisms from being added or modified without re-weighing, as on the way out from a match, it's difficult to remove anything added from before the match.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Not so fast. It's also a spare part, which doesn't count against the limit.
...

Incredible! But then again, some people are still struggling with what is is.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Incredible! But then again, some people are still struggling with what is is.

Oh, so if I have eleven drill motors (10 of which are spares), I have to account for the weight of each of them? Do I weigh in with my spare batteries too? Some people are apparently still struggling with that little problem. [Edit: As a public service announcement to others, I'm being facetious. Don't worry.]

Read what I actually said about the rules not precluding that drill being considered a spare. And the potential problem with counting the weight of parts that can be installed in different places, thanks to a configurable robot. I doubt that you did either of those things, before jumping in with a weakly-reasoned position. (Or, rather, if you dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare, you might consider actually explaining yourself.)

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Oh, so if I have eleven drill motors (10 of which are spares), I have to account for the weight of each of them? Do I weigh in with my spare batteries too? Some people are apparently still struggling with that little problem.

Read what I actually said about the rules not precluding that drill being considered a spare. And the potential problem with counting the weight of parts that can be installed in different places, thanks to a configurable robot. I doubt that you did either of those things, before jumping in with a weakly-reasoned position. (Or, rather, if you dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare, you might consider actually explaining yourself.)

When attached to a legal functional weighed in part of your robot it is not a spare. If you attach after weigh in it becomes part of a functional part of the robot and must be weighed in. If you have 2 motors attached to parts of a legal weighed in robot then they must be counted. As soon as you place on the robot then Gracious Professionalism dictates that you take all parts to the weigh in and then re weigh. I am surprised that you of all people do not understand simplicity and stated rules. You are a smart guy. Tell me what you believe the intent of the rule to be. That being the fact that you weight in robot and ALL attachments.