1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

(I do wish you'd answer the question about modular drivebases. It would give a lot more insight into how you're coming to the conclusion you do.)

See my post #72 in this thread. I copped out at that time. Is another robot just a "modular drivebase"? Good question! I haven't seen the hypothetical "modular drivebases" you're referring to, so I have no way of knowing.

Apparently the GDC considers a robot to consist of a drivebase plus other mechanisms.

Yes, that seems to be what they meant when they defined a FIRST robot as a remotely operated vehicle designed to perform specific tasks, in 8.1.1.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Bochek

just a thought here. Not sure if it has been covered by anyone else, or have i re-read through all the rules that would cover this but....

If your starting configuration had the smaller robot sitting ontop of the larger one, and somehow you drove it off the larger one. and left it sitting in the home zone. Now you have one robot (starting configuration)

When you wanted to use the larger bot, you just would not place the smaller one on it, you just removed a mechanism right?

Just a thought.

- Bochek

I'm not sure of what you're suggesting, but you can't have detachable pieces. What you put on the field must stay together as one body.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by squirrel

Yes, I do have my own idea of what a robot is. I expect that you do too. And the rules don't say whether or not my idea is right or wrong, or whether or not your idea is right or wrong. I think that's the point. You have to actually think about what a robot is, and come to some reasonable conclusion. Unfortuntely Ken came to a different conclusion than the GDC did.

And Ken, I understand that you don't agree with the ruling, but I also get the idea that you can see what they mean about you having two robots.

I also don't think the GDC was implying mal-intent or complete lack of common sense on your part, but I can see why you think so. You had a really neat idea, but it turns out that implementing it as you did gives the appearance of trying to circumvent the rules. As I mentioned before, if you had somehow incorporated the small drive base into the big robot, it would most likely have been acceptable.

EDIT: After reading Al's post then mine again I have decided to replace it with a more succinct GP version.

If the rules don't clearly say who is right and wrong, and therefore whether the design is legal or not, don't we have to give the team the benefit of the doubt and allow them to compete?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
I have to step in here and state that this discussion is pushing the envelope a little. If you were to look at some of the dialogue from an outsider's perspective, this appears to be transcending GP. From my standpoint I am getting a little embarrassed by the repsonses. I would have never entered into this discussion had I thought it would come to this. I am all for having a lively discussion with GP in mind.

[Francis-134]

As an aside, there was a team last year at the Boston Regional that had no drivetrain at all. During autonomous, the team simply released a servo and let thier ramps fall to the ground. They would then sit there for the remainder of the match patiently waiting for other teams to drive up onto them (their ramp system was completely passive). This robot passed inspection.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

... Apparently the GDC considers a robot to consist of a drivebase plus other mechanisms. Unless they change their mind, I expect something to that effect to appear in the manual for next year's game.

Originally Posted by squirrel

... Yes, that seems to be what they meant when they defined a FIRST robot as a remotely operated vehicle designed to perform specific tasks, in 8.1.1.

Originally Posted by 2008 FRC Manual, Section 8.1.4 Conventions

Key words that have a particular meaning within the context of the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition are defined in sections 6, 7.2 and 8.2, and indicated in ALL CAPITAL letters throughout this text.

Originally Posted by 2008 FRC Manual, Section 7.2

...ROBOT: Anything that has passed ROBOT inspection that a TEAM places on the TRACK prior to the start of a MATCH.

As squirrel correctly points out, Section 8.1.1 says that a FIRST robot [note: lower case] is a remotely operated vehicle designed to perform specific tasks. However, per the convention provided in Section 8.1.4, that statement is not a definition. A FIRST ROBOT [note: capitalized] is defined in Section 7.2. The distinction is, of course, lawyerish.

Done correctly, lawyering can be gracious and professional. At its best the legal profession is about gracious resolution of disputes. At its worst, it encourages disputes by rewarding people who win them.

Of course it is equally true that engineering can be practiced ungraciously and unprofessionally. I'm disappointed when someone uses either 'engineer' or 'lawyer' as a perjorative label.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Francis-134

As an aside, there was a team last year at the Boston Regional that had no drivetrain at all. During autonomous, the team simply released a servo and let thier ramps fall to the ground. They would then sit there for the remainder of the match patiently waiting for other teams to drive up onto them (their ramp system was completely passive). This robot passed inspection.

Based on this precedent, I think we can safely assume that a DRIVEBASE does not constitute a ROBOT according to FIRST. Since this is the case, it only serves to further the view that brain = ROBOT.

If a DRIVEBASE can't be considered a ROBOT (since a ROBOT without a DRIVEBASE competed in the past [yes I know, past years rules are not this years rules, but the specific rules in question have not changed]), then what is left to consider as a ROBOT, but the brains, aka the RC, battery, Victors, etc?

[Elgin Clock]

A personal statement to Team 1519!!! Please read!!

While I need to review this thread further before I comment on the ruling, (and because most things I've seen here cover what I would say from what I have read) I want to just state one thing to your team!

If you are going to off-seasons which aren't officially FIRST sanctioned and thus more loosely rule based sometimes, then get approval to have both bots (or one bot as is being debated) as you imagined it from week 1 of build being to be allowed to play there at least!

I'd love to see both & or one in competition since I missed BAE this year!

Bottom line is, I'm sure most off season events will not have a problem with you bringing your configuration as you envisioned, since off-season's don't lawyer the rules as much as FIRST (claim they don't want to) but has in this case!

Good luck the remainder of the year, and I hope to see you at an off-season in New England with both Fezzik & Speed Racer!

Also, if you are going to Atlanta I would like to see both configurations shipped there to allow the general FIRST public to see what was disallowed for future reference.

A personal statement to everyone else aside from Team 1519!!! Please read!!

If you believe that Team 1519 are truly innovative, and thought outside the box with this, and you see them at an event, please offer some words of congratulations & praise in their engineering attempts, even if you don't agree that they followed the rules as lawyered.

I know if I see 1519 at an event this year, I will be doing that very thing.

I personally praise their creativity, innovation, and outside the box thinking!

I thought that's what a majority of the engineering awards were for in this competition, and am saddened to see them being penalized for attempting to break the mold, step it up a bit and push the engineering limits to extremes!

</$0.02>

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

A personal statement to Team 1519!!! Please read!!

While I need to review this thread further before I comment on the ruling, (and because most things I've seen here cover what I would say from what I have read) I want to just state one thing to your team!

If you are going to off-seasons which aren't officially FIRST sanctioned and thus more loosely rule based sometimes, then get approval to have both bots (or one bot as is being debated) as you imagined it from week 1 of build being to be allowed to play there at least!

I'd love to see both & or one in competition since I missed BAE this year!

Bottom line is, I'm sure most off season events will not have a problem with you bringing your configuration as you envisioned, since off-season's don't lawyer the rules as much as FIRST (claim they don't want to) but has in this case!

Good luck the remainder of the year, and I hope to see you at an off-season in New England with both Fezzik & Speed Racer!

Also, if you are going to Atlanta I would like to see both configurations shipped there to allow the general FIRST public to see what was disallowed for future reference.

Many off-season events would probably just let them compete with both as separate robots.

[LizzieP]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

Also, if you are going to Atlanta I would like to see both configurations shipped there to allow the general FIRST public to see what was disallowed for future reference.

Unfortunately, the official season is over for us. We will, however, be attending several off-season tournaments.

While it would be very fun to strategize with both Fezzik and Mach 6 as one robot, 1519 plans to enter as two (or maybe three-we have two speed racers) completely different teams in order to give more students the chance to drive and be part of the pit crew etc.

[Blue_Mist]

My personal opinion is one robot, two configurations. Only one robot will be on the field at any time, they pass the weight requirements, and they are only using one set of RC Chip/Radio for either version of the robot. Also, this is definitely outside of the box/diagonal thinking. I congratulate 1519 for their courage in trying something that is certainly different. Just adding my voice to the general clamor.

[Leav]

I agree with Elgin, it is a real shame to see a team penalized for innovation - I thought that was corner stone of FIRST!

1519 - Congratulation on breaking out of the box: I think that in this respect at least FIRST has succeeded in preparing you for real life. I'd say most engineers I know are afraid of working out the box, and they tend to make life difficult for those with a more innovative mind.

Regarding the ruling: I always thought that the rule could/should be seen as "anything that will ever be on the field has to fit inside the measurement box, and when measuring, everything inside should conform to the rules (e.g. only 4 cims)."

I think that is a good definition since this would allow more flexibility and innovation without giving an unfair advantage to veteran/power teams.

-Leav

[Kendal Reed]

I have read this entire thread very thoroughly, and I feel forced to conclude that the GDC has failed to define a robot sufficiently to preclude the argument that 1519's complete electronics board and electrical system is their robot and "Fezzik" and "Speed Racer" are both interchangeable MECHANISMs, making this approach entirely within the rules. The example of the robot from 2007 which had ramps and no drive system and passed inspection reinforces this argument in that the other possible "implied definition" of a robot was an electrical system and a drive base, and this possibility is clearly refuted by the existence of an approved robot without any drive system at all.

1519's approach is innovative and does not violate any explicit rules as far as I have been able to tell (Yes, I realize after seven pages of debate that probably doesn't mean squat, and I also recall seeing an objection based on the inability of either configuration to accept all of the prepared bumpers which, while neither something I can find in the rules nor something the GDC used to justify their official decision, might legitimately disqualify them), and I commend them on that.

I also believe that while the GDC obviously has the power to say "no, that's two robots," they should have done so in a manner that clearly defined a "basic robot structure" for future reference, and should not have included the last paragraph denouncing 1519 for "lawyering" and finding/creating "loopholes" in a rule through which their approach makes it clear you could drive a truck (or, perhaps more appropriately, two complete drive trains).

[SU 39]

I wonder if anyone has asked GDC on the Q&A what exactly constitutes a robot?

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by SU 39

I wonder if anyone has asked GDC on the Q&A what exactly constitutes a robot?

It's in the rules. It has to pass inspection. However, nowhere in the rule book does it define what a ROBOT is so that the inspectors can accurately say that something is a ROBOT and not a MECHANISM.

It has to be a ROBOT to pass inspection (and there can be only one!), but to be a ROBOT it has to pass inspection.

...interesting.