1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

[Ken Streeter]

I was just looking at this thread and noticed in the "Similar Threads" section of the bottom of the page (which I usually just ignore) that Team 2186 started a thread right after kickoff (Dual Robots) with what sounds like a very similar design to what we built with Fezzik and Speed Racer. I wonder if they stuck with that design? Is theirs going to be ruled illegal, too, or is it sufficiently different that they'll be ok?

[Kevin Sevcik]

I have to say that Tristan covered most of the points I was going to. Taking the answer from the GDC as a whole, it really feels to me like reasoning they came up with after they decided to disallow 1519's design. I'm not even convinced it makes any logical sense. As pointed out, a ROBOT is explicitly defined as something that's passed inspection. Declaring that you can't pass inspection because you have two things that have passed inspection clearly is nonsense. If you posit that pre-inspection a robot must be something that you're trying to get to pass inspection.... Well they were only trying to pass one thing through inspection.

As Tristan pointed out, the bumper rules only state that your bumpers in total must weigh less than 15 lbs and that your robot must have 2/3rds the perimeter covered. If the GDC is ruling that any bumpers you bring to the competition must always be attached to your robot.... Well they needed to say that somewhere, as it's a pretty restrictive and important rule. If you designed a modular robot that fit the GDC's arbitrary preconceived notions of what they know you know they were thinking, but you needed to remove the back bumper to make the 80" rule with your hurdler.... well you'd be in trouble. Will refs start DQing rookies for sending robots out missing a bumper they had on site even though they're still covering 67% of the robot?

As to the R114 reference, I don't really see how Fezzik and Speed Racer aren't mechanisms. They both provide specific functionality. Is the GDC claiming that if you have a module that does more than one thing, that it's illegal? While I know previous years rules don't apply, I know I've seen modules more complicated than a single motor used before. 57's even done so. And again, they just refer back to mechanisms ON THE ROBOT without bothering to define what a robot is.

And finally, as to their reasoning with R12 and "basic ROBOT structure"... I think a casual reading of the example given gives the impression that the drive train plus manipulators solution was the solution of that particular team. I mean, it says right there that that was how they decided to do it.

I'm not disputing the GDC's authority to make this ruling, but I think they have a responsibility to fairly, clearly, and above all logically explain their ruling. Circular reasoning and expressions of "Hmph. Well you should've known we wouldn't allow this." don't meet this standard for me. I realize this is clearly something they had never considered before and that they were probably caught by surprise. But I think that means they should reread the rules as they wrote them and rules based on that. I seem to recall a contentious issue that came up a few years ago after the ship date where the GDC ruled very clearly on a very straight forward reading of the rules. And pointed out some rather restrictive preconceptions many of us were working under at the time. I find it ironic in the extreme that this time the GDC has decided that their preconceived notions are the ones that win. If they decided that they obviously left out a proper definition of a robot from the rules, at least man up and say so an give a clear definition that can be worked from. I ask this because the response they've given to this Q&A is so vague as to be completely useless for any other ruling that might need to be made going forward.

[Dan Petrovic]

Well. It seems like 1519 will join the ranks of teams that have created rules by bringing up a situation that caused controversy. See Wildstang's stacking robots in 2007 and 121's tipping mechanism in 1997 (and maybe other years?).

I think we will now see a definition of ROBOT that is more descriptive than the definition they give us now.

[thefro526]

Personally I think the GDC should have ruled this legal. While I don't like the idea of having an opponent switch robots with a moments notice, I can appreciate 1519's ability to think outside of the box and use a strategy which I totally believe is within the rules. Possibly you could do what the tecknokats (sp) team 45 did in 03 and loan the configuration to a team that needs it. If I remember correctly the loaned there second robot (the ball drive robot ) to some other team who was experiencing difficulties.

[dtengineering]

Wow. What a poor, poor ruling from GDC, especially the comment about "lawyering" the rules and looking for loopholes. That was just plain unnecessary and inappropriate. If anyone is guilty of that in this case it is GDC in seeking some faint excuse to justify a very unfortunate ruling. If 1519 is guilty of anything it is guilty of great engineering, creativity and innovation.

Someone in FIRST needs to demonstrate the gracious professionalism required to say, "Well... that isn't what we meant... but it is what we said." and enforce the rules as written, not as intended. Looks like when the going gets tough that the expectation of GP only really applies to teams.

The GDC arguments have been throughly picked apart already in this thread, and I have nothing to add other than my disappointment in this ruling. GDC does a great job, and a difficult job, and 99.9% of the time I can agree with or accept their rulings without protest. In this case, however, I cannot. Perhaps all teams with four bumpers should leave one in the pit for a match just to demonstrate solidarity with 1519 and make it quite clear that just because a team has 15 pounds of bumpers doesn't mean they have to use all 15 pounds all the time.

Thank goodness that 1519 and Fezzik did so well without the help of Speed Racer... perhaps they even did better because they now had 30 lbs to ballast with that they would have been unable to use had Speed Racer been ruled an attachment, but a fortunate outcome hardly makes up for an unfortunate ruling.

Jason

[MrForbes]

<devil's advocate>
Perhaps this is how the GDC sees the issue (it is pretty much how I see it):


There are what appear to be two robots, although one is missing it's electronics. The team is using a "lawyer" interpretation of the rules to say that only one of them is really a robot, the other is just a mechanism, even though it is obvious by just looking at them that they are indeed both robots.


I realize I'm in the minority among those who are posting on this thread....but come on, you all know what a robot looks like, and what a mechanism looks like. Speed racer looks like a robot, it does not look like just a mechanism. Why should the GDC see it any differently just because the rules don't precisely define what comprises a "ROBOT"? Isn't the general term well enough understood among us folks who design, build, and play with robots that it doesn't need a precise definition?

</devil's advocate>

[BHS_STopping]

I think that what may be a problem for the GDC, in this case, is that it is pretty difficult to create a clear-cut definition of a "robot" without being incredibly intricate or complicated. As we have seen many machines in competition, each robot holds its own unique, qualitative characteristics. Even though the GDC has not yet established a comprehensive definition of a "robot," it appears to me that currently, a robot must consist of any and all required components specified in the rulebook. As was stated before, a cardboard box with a robot controller, a flag holder, and a few other items could be considered a robot. In practice, however, "common sense" would dictate that such a thing really isn't a robot. Such a thing, however, is legal, although I severely doubt it would pass inspection in such a state.

I'm afraid that at the current moment, the situation is pretty much ambiguous as to its "legality." Sure, the rules say that such a configuration is legal, in that it meets all specified criteria for the definition of a robot. My opinion is that, even though 1519 found what the GDC considers a "loophole," it appears that it was in 1519's interest to try and flex their creativity while still adhering to the above rules and criteria. I severely doubt that 1519 had any malicious intentions to try and deceive the GDC with their design. I believe that 1519 tried too hard to try and make their creation(s) legal and unproblematic for the inspectors to have part of their design dismissed outright.

Perhaps in the future, the GDC will be able to predict this sort of incident and prevent such a controversial topic from repeating itself. As it stands, I see that 1519's machines/mechanisms can certainly qualify as a single robot if the literal interpretation of this rule is taken. If they are able to fix their bumper issue, I believe that they should be able to compete with both machines.

I can understand the GDC's stance on this overall issue, for it is a difficult one to judge, especially given the circumstances of the situation. I also believe that it would have been very beneficial (and prevented a load of controversy) if 1519 had asked about this in the Q&A earlier in the season, especially if there was any sense of ambiguity as to the legitimacy of their design. It's kind of understandable too that they hadn't asked until they were completely finished, and I can vouch that sometimes my mind is always wandering in a place much different from the rulebooks.

If I remember correctly, I thought that FIRST gave the benefit of the doubt to the teams regarding an issue such as this. Given my observations of this discussion and 1519's behavior, it seems to me that their team meant, in no way, to deceive the GDC and compromise the integrity of this year's game. I do find it quite interesting that 1519 is capable of creating excellent machines which are well suited for this year's game. If it counts for anything, I can at least say that 1519 is the only team to experience both sides of the spectrum: Building a Racer and a Hurdler in one season is certainly an admirable accomplishment!

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by squirrel

<devil's advocate>
Perhaps this is how the GDC sees the issue (it is pretty much how I see it):


There are what appear to be two robots, although one is missing it's electronics. The team is using a "lawyer" interpretation of the rules to say that only one of them is really a robot, the other is just a mechanism, even though it is obvious by just looking at them that they are indeed both robots.


I realize I'm in the minority among those who are posting on this thread....but come on, you all know what a robot looks like, and what a mechanism looks like. Speed racer looks like a robot, it does not look like just a mechanism. Why should the GDC see it any differently just because the rules don't precisely define what comprises a "ROBOT"? Isn't the general term well enough understood among us folks who design, build, and play with robots that it doesn't need a precise definition?

</devil's advocate>

But the problem is that "looks like a robot implies it is a robot" is not in the current year's rules, and "looks like a robot implies it is a robot" is very vague. What makes it look like a robot? the wheels? the victors? the square-ness? Any of those are fine reasons to say something is a robot, but they weren't in the rules. How much of speed racer would 1519 have had to include as part of their swappable kernel before this was legal? The frame? the frame and wheels? Don't know? That's the problem.

Originally Posted by BHS_STopping

I think that what may be a problem for the GDC, in this case, is that it is pretty difficult to create a clear-cut definition of a "robot" without being incredibly intricate or complicated.

I think the GDC will be able to prevent this next year without defining a robot. If the rules for swappable mechanisms include a clause saying "swapped mechanisms may not touch the ground in the robot's starting configuration" or "swapped mechanisms may not interact with the ground to move the robot", then it would disqualify 1519 cleanly and with minimum sentences.

[MrForbes]

Yes, I was just trying to show you another way of looking at it that does not involve careful scrutiny of the rules...step back and look at the big picture. Speed Racer is a whole robot, it's not a mechanism, you can tell just by looking at it, without referring to any rules at all, by using your common robot sense.

Perhaps this is what the GDC did. It's what I did.

[Woody1458]

As all forseeable responces to this issue have been post I wish to just say I feel for the members of 1519 that put so much effort, thought, engineering, and building into a revolurionary creative design that will never reach the admiration it deserves.


BTW check the sig

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by squirrel

...you can tell just by looking at it, without referring to any rules at all...

If you're going to decide something without using the rules, there's no way to know whether someone else will decide the same thing. The objective standard is the collection of rules, not "common sense".

I don't see anything in the rules that makes 1519's paratwa-bot illegal. I don't see their solution as exploiting a loophole. On the contrary, I'm in awe of the creative outside-the-box thinking that devised it. I am disappointed by the GDC's decision on the matter, I am dismayed by the weak arguments used to support the decision, and I am discouraged by the tone of the Q&A response. But I accept the decision and I move on, expecting that next year's manual will address the issue more solidly.

[Vikesrock]

Actually a FIRST robot is defined in the rules in section 8.1.1 of the manual

Originally Posted by FIRST Manual

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 2008 competition “FIRST Overdrive.”

So a robot must be:

1. Designed and built by a FRC team (true for both configurations)
2. Remotely Operated (As team 1519 had 1 electronics board, I would contend that they only had one object that could be properly described as remotely operated at any given time)
3. Be designed to perform specific tasks (check)

This definition would tend to support the "brains constitute a robot" theory as the RC, main battery and associated distribution (main breaker, rockwell block and breaker panel), backup battery and radio would be the minimum necessary to be remotely operated and still comply with all other specifications in the rules.

I also would like to disagree with Squirrel's "if it looks like a robot" theory. If we limit it to FIRST robots, I have never seen a FIRST robot without wheels, treads or another method of moving the robot base. However, I could see a robot being designed for, say, the 2006 game, that would be designed to complete specific tasks without the need for the base to move. To me it would not look like a robot, but it would meet all specifications outlined in the rules and should be allowed to compete. If we move outside the realm of FIRST things get far more interesting. Does this thing look like a robot? How about this? To me that first one looks like a sculpture and the second one looks like a car; however, both of these things are actually robots.

I feel this rule definitely needs to be reviewed and dealt with more thoroughly as I can find nothing in the current rules to rule against the following scenario:

Originally Posted by Scenario

Redateam begins the competition season by brainstorming ideas regarding this years challenge. They cannot choose between two excellent ideas and decide that their resources will allow them to pursue both. They design the robots such that the same electronics board (including a mount for the battery) can be used on both. As build season raps up they still cannot decide which machine is better suited to the task. In a stroke of genius Redateam removes the electronics board from Redabot2 and jams Redabot1 and an electronic-less Redabot2 into their crate for shipping to the Magnolia Regional.

Between ship and the Magnolia regional, Redateam decides they will go with Redabot1. They arrive at the regional, unpack their crate and proceed to have Redabot1 inspected. It weighs in at 119.5 lbs and passes all inspection criteria. They begin participating in practice matches and decide to reverse their decision and use Redabot2.

Redateam returns to their pit and begins by unbolting their electronics board from Redabot1. They then attach it to Redabot2. As they have modified their robot they ask for and receive a complete reinspection of their robot. It is inspected by a different inspector than the first. Finding Redabot2 to be in compliance with all robot rules, the inspector clears it for play.

As Redabot2 as shipped was not a remotely operated vehicle, it would not qualify as a robot under the 2008 manual. Thus, Redateam did not at any time possess 2 robots at the regional.

If you feel that you have justification for the above scenario being illegal, what about if they only shipped the manipulator of Redabot2 and swapped it onto Redabot1? What if they fabricated a new manipulator at competition and placed it on Redabot1? What if they fabricated a new drive base and manipulator and placed the electronics from Redabot1 onto it? I do not see any rules that clearly demonstrate to me that any of these scenarios is either legal or illegal. In this event I believe that the team must be given the benefit of the doubt and that their configuration must be allowed.

This scenario is slightly different than 1519's as Redateam would have to have their robot reinspected each time they wished to change configurations, but I think it is actually much farther from the spirit of the rules than 1519's situation.

[Fastnate]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

Do you have a picture of both robots as one entity, or as much together as weight allows?

I think what is burning you technically is the bumpers if I am envisioning this correctly.
Do all your bumpers that you would use on every configuration meet standard weight limit requirements?
Should they??

You have a very interesting case and plenty of valid points supporting your thinking, I'm just trying to take the mindset of both "by the rules", and "by the interpretation of the rules" and look for what they saw which would be illegal.

A picture of both configurations together would be good.

Yep!
We have bumpers for both configurations which combined meet the 15lb weight limit, and wrap around limits for the frames.
The back bumper for Fezzik is the front bumper for Mach 6.

[Matt H.]

Originally Posted by Scenario
Redateam begins the competition season by brainstorming ideas regarding this years challenge. They cannot choose between two excellent ideas and decide that their resources will allow them to pursue both. They design the robots such that the same electronics board (including a mount for the battery) can be used on both. As build season raps up they still cannot decide which machine is better suited to the task. In a stroke of genius Redateam removes the electronics board from Redabot2 and jams Redabot1 and an electronic-less Redabot2 into their crate for shipping to the Magnolia Regional.

Between ship and the Magnolia regional, Redateam decides they will go with Redabot1. They arrive at the regional, unpack their crate and proceed to have Redabot1 inspected. It weighs in at 119.5 lbs and passes all inspection criteria. They begin participating in practice matches and decide to reverse their decision and use Redabot2.

Redateam returns to their pit and begins by unbolting their electronics board from Redabot1. They then attach it to Redabot2. As they have modified their robot they ask for and receive a complete reinspection of their robot. It is inspected by a different inspector than the first. Finding Redabot2 to be in compliance with all robot rules, the inspector clears it for play.

As Redabot2 as shipped was not a remotely operated vehicle, it would not qualify as a robot under the 2008 manual. Thus, Redateam did not at any time possess 2 robots at the regional.

This scenario is illegal because the two "mechanisms" together must make the weight limit--which is the limiting factor preventing teams from shipping 1000 robots and what made this such a design challenge for 1519. If your above scenario the sum of the masses of the two robots is well about 120lbs making it illegal. The two robots 1519 had weight 120lbs together.

I agree that squirrel's idea that we know what a robot looks like is flawed--such an approach encourages making the same first robot continuously rather than branching out and changing with time. I'm sure there is nothing innovative about every team building a 6wheel drive rectangular robot which is what your description would create a robot.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

If you're going to decide something without using the rules, there's no way to know whether someone else will decide the same thing. The objective standard is the collection of rules, not "common sense".

That's true.

However, you have to start somewhere....not every term used in the rules is defined, and in fact we are encouraged: "When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule."

Engineering thinking, to me, is that two frames with drive motors and wheels and everything else (except electronics) constitutes two robots. Lawyer thinking is that since one of the robots does not have electronics at any given time, then there is only one legally defined robot.

I think the reasoning behind the decision is that they want us to make only one robot, although we are welcome to make different mechanisms to go on that robot to play the game in different ways.

I also think that the concept of a small robot with a bigger drive system and ball handing mechanism that can be put onto it quickly is excellent, and it would have been very neat to see this happen. But I also think the way to do it would be to have a small robot that had more added onto it, rather than having two different robots. As you say, the rules will probably be refined to make this more plain.