1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Chrisms

I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.

You say that swapping different arms (presumably with different motors and sensors) is fine.

(1)What about an arm with a substantial frame at the bottom of it?
(2)What about an arm with a substantial frame and drive motors (but no wheels) at the bottom of it?
(3)What about an arm with half a drive system at the bottom of it?
(4)What about an arm with the whole drive system at the bottom of it?

You'd probably not allow (3) or (4) judging by your post, but the problem is that the actual rules give no guidance on where this line is drawn. Where does an 'interchangeable arm' stop and a 'robot' begin? In order for there to be consistency, there needs to be a consistent answer to this question, which there isn't. It comes down to the thoughts of the person deciding. Most people in the thread would allow all four options above, some wouldn't allow (4), and some wouldn't allow (3) or (4). The GDC response doesn't help to determine where that dividing line between interchangeable mechanism and robot is, though I imagine the rulebook will next year. By a strict reading of this year's rules, it appears that all four are allowed.

[Craig Roys]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

There actually was such a robot at the Western Michigan Regional, 2006 I think.

It was 1718 at GLR in 2006 (our rookie year). We began with tank treads, but had many issues and switched over to wheels during the competition. During the process we had a match and our robot had no wheels. We figured we could at least run our auton to try and roll a few poofballs in for some points and then have our alliance push us into the back zone as the "back-bot". We asked if we could field the robot without wheels and the refs said yes. I'm not sure which side of the debate this falls on, but thought I would clarify on the "robot that can't move" issue.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Chrisms

I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.

What about the third option, an electronics board with attached 'basic framework', and modular drives AS WELL AS modular arms. This is effectively what 1519 built.

The fact that they choose to change them simultaneously is irrelevant

[Chrisms]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

What about the third option, an electronics board with attached 'basic framework', and modular drives AS WELL AS modular arms. This is effectively what 1519 built.

The fact that they choose to change them simultaneously is irrelevant

what it looks like to me, and i'm sure to the inspectors who have 40+ teams to deal with in a very short period of time. is that there are two, independent bodies. Thats probably the only reason it was not allowed.


MORT's electrical system this years drops out, and has anderson connectors on all the wires leading to off the board so that we can remove it to keep the metal shavings out. If we had a second robot that our electronics popped into, it would be a second robot, just with a hole in the bottom for the board to screw into.

the fact that they have two independently standing + operating superstructures is what didn't allow it. I think everyone is missing the fact that both of these robots are robots in their own respect. The only difference is one of them doesn't have an RC hooked up to it. Besides that, they are fully functional alone. And thus, independent of each other.

A arm alone, is not a robot, it's an arm(in this competition, since an arm alone wouldn't really function for points). A gearbox with a wheel, is just a gearbox with a wheel, it isn't a robot. thats how a modular robot would have to be made for it to instantly be seen as "one robot"

thats my take, and i think how the people who made the call saw it. I still think it's amazing they made weight and such... with that in mind, did both fit in the starting config? I don't know if that was discussed.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Chrisms

what it looks like to me, and i'm sure to the inspectors who have 40+ teams to deal with in a very short period of time. is that there are two, independent bodies. Thats probably the only reason it was not allowed.


MORT's electrical system this years drops out, and has anderson connectors on all the wires leading to off the board so that we can remove it to keep the metal shavings out. If we had a second robot that our electronics popped into, it would be a second robot, just with a hole in the bottom for the board to screw into.

the fact that they have two independently standing + operating superstructures is what didn't allow it. I think everyone is missing the fact that both of these robots are robots in their own respect. The only difference is one of them doesn't have an RC hooked up to it. Besides that, they are fully functional alone. And thus, independent of each other.

A arm alone, is not a robot, it's an arm(in this competition, since an arm alone wouldn't really function for points). A gearbox with a wheel, is just a gearbox with a wheel, it isn't a robot. thats how a modular robot would have to be made for it to instantly be seen as "one robot"

thats my take, and i think how the people who made the call saw it. I still think it's amazing they made weight and such... with that in mind, did both fit in the starting config? I don't know if that was discussed.

But isn't a frame with motors attached just a frame with motors attached until you add in the ROBOT controller, to make it a ROBOT? The superstructures can't operate without their brain, and since theres only one permissible ROBOT controller for each team (the 2008 one issued in this years KOP), theres only one ROBOT.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Chrisms

I think everyone is missing the fact that both of these robots are robots in their own respect.

The point of contention is whether or not the two assemblies, taken together, violate any of the rules that apply to a ROBOT. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that they do not. Together, they follow the letter of the rules.

There's only one problem: the manual does not explicitly define what a ROBOT is. The Game Design Committee agrees with your take, saying that 1519 built two robots. I'm still not convinced they built two ROBOTs, but the GDC is backing the inspectors who decided that's what they did.

[Danielle H]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The point of contention is whether or not the two assemblies, taken together, violate any of the rules that apply to a ROBOT. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that they do not. Together, they follow the letter of the rules.

There's only one problem: the manual does not explicitly define what a ROBOT is. The Game Design Committee agrees with your take, saying that 1519 built two robots. I'm still not convinced they built two ROBOTs, but the GDC is backing the inspectors who decided that's what they did.

The GDC is attempting to cover their tracks, but with circular reasoning, which was actually susprising to me. Of all people, I figured the GDC could find an argument that was clear, concise, and actually CLARIFIED the rules that were used in their defense.

Their response was none of these.

They quoted rules that were very vague in themselves, and then did exactly what they accused 1519 of doing: they lawyered interpretations. In fact, they lawyered their entire response. The concept of using vague rules that you can manipulate in interpretation in attempts to back up your completely bogus point (which, that's just my opinion.. it's one robot) is exactly what the GDC did, and exactly what they were asking 1519 what to do.

Coming from the people that wrote the rules and designed the game, I figured the response would at least give people some piece of mind.. but, judging from the 6 pages of discussion that followed the posting of response, it's easy to see that no one's really satisfied.

If nothing else, I hope that the GDC takes this as a lesson to more clearly define things in the future.

((I quoted you because I agreed that I'm not convinced they built two and that they didn't clearly define ROBOT.))

[dr1008]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

NOTE -- I originally hadn't intended to ask this question of the ChiefDelphi community prior to receiving an answer to our pending Q&A from the FIRST Game Design Committee, but so many people have asked about what happened to our dual-configuration robot in the four days since the start of our week 1 regional that I am having difficulty justifying the continued delay to reply to folks while waiting for the official Q&A response...

This year our team employed a strategy that piqued our curiousity in past years every time we saw the "different configurations of the ROBOT" phrase in the weight rule (<R12> this year) -- we built a robot with two radically different configurations.

Our first robot configuration (which we call "Fezzik") is a standard, but minimal, drive base with an arm; the second configuration ("Speed Racer / Mach 6") is a very small, light, lap-runner with a cool autonomous mode. We worked hard to minimize weight on each configuration in order to have the total for both meet the 120 pound maximum weight limit. We designed a modular electronics board which would fit in the available space for each drivetrain, as well as have the appropriate circuit breakers and speed controllers. We also made compromises with each configuration to reduce weight as much as possible. When all was said and done, we just barely made weight with the two configurations -- 87.7 pounds for Fezzik (including the electronics board) and 32.1 pounds for the Speed Racer without any electronics. We were very excited for the possibilities opened up by being able to choose which configuration of the robot to field in any given match given the composition of our alliances. We also thought our approach was innovative and potentially award-worthy.

However, upon arriving at the Granite State Regional, we learned that our dual-configuration robot would not be allowed, as it was considered to be in violation of Rule R09: "Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition." We protested that we didn't have two robots, but rather one dual-configuration robot. Prior to the tournament, we had not submitted an official Q&A asking if our approach was permissible, as we thought our design was completely within the rules. However, a different line of reasoning ("If it looks like two robots, it's two robots") would indicate that our design is clearly against the rules.

On Thursday afternoon, we submitted a multi-page description of our approach and design, including photos of each configuration, to the official Q&A. (You can read the same description in a link titled "official request for clarification" in the Team News section of our website: http://www.mechanicalmayhem.org/default.asp#GSR-Day1.) We realized when we submitted the Q&A that we would almost surely not hear an answer before the completion of the Granite State Regional, as those who would be involved with the decision were probably all busy at other regional tournaments! However, we wanted to submit the question to the official Q&A as soon as possible in case we might possibly have a reply prior to Saturday's elimination rounds or before we would have to pack the robot into the crate in case we qualified for the Championships. As we anticipated, we didn't receive a reply to our question during the tournament, but we still had a great time at GSR nonetheless. Fezzik performed admirably, ending up as the #4 seed, and our efforts at the tournament during the qualification rounds could be focused on Fezzik's needs rather than being split between the two different configurations.

The need for an answer to our question has been overcome by events, as we didn't qualify for the Championships (our alliance with 126 and 1307 was beaten fair and square in 4 hard-fought semifinal matches against 121, 40, and 134 who later emerged as the GSR champions) but we hope to hear the official response in the Q&A at some point regarding our dual-configuration robot.

In any case, we hope to get both Fezzik and Speed Racer some laps at post-season tournaments this summer!

im thinking that they might have accepted it if you connected speed racer to fezzik when using fezzik and then only use speed racer when you are choosing option 2. that way it should be only one robot with an option of a massive weight reduction, and argument could be stirred that its just like taking an arm off.