Actually, Gary, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head – coming from a FIRST LEGO League mindset, a modular robot configuration is very natural. (It’s exactly what we’ve done for years in FLL, with plug-and-play drive bases, arms, and manipulators being connected to a “core robot” to modify it for different missions.) That approach, however, is not traditional in the FIRST Robotics Competition.
However, to play “devil’s advocate” on our design and help illustrate what I think is the alternative perspective on the matter (that we obviously brought two robots, not one dual-configuration robot), let us consider a comparable analogy:
Consider two vehicles for sale at your local Ford dealer: a Ford Escape and a Ford Focus. Let’s say you purchase these two vehicles and bring them home with you. After getting them home, you take the engine out of the Focus and have the engine recycled for scrap steel. Now, whenever you want to commute to work you pull the engine out of the Escape and stick it in the Ford Focus. When the weekend arrives and you want to go offroading, you pull the engine again and stick it into the Escape. Do you have one vehicle, or two? Sure looks and feels like two vehicles to me!
Ken,
Without really seeing the mechanisms in person, I would have to agree with the decision that was rendered at GSR based on the description and photos. A rather simple test in testing robot configurations is whether one supports the other as in a detachable arm or other component. If you consider Speed racer to be an attachment it would need to be “attched” to your other base. Moving electronics from one base that drives to another base that drives does not, in my mind, represent two attachments but two separate robots. That does not preclude your attempt to think outside the box and design a unique solution that potentially could win on several levels. I applaud your ability to build both pieces and stay below the 120 lb limit. R12 makes an example for weigh in but the example further describes the multiple configuration.
yeah, but you don’t have the ability to use the 2 vehicles at the same time, and at any given time only 1 of the vehicles will be in use…i think thats what clinches it for me, the fact that even though you have 2 separate systems, only 1 will be in use at any given time.
Continuing the thought experiment, it seems necessary that we examine our definition of a vehicle. There’s an argument to be made that if we don’t rely on our preconceived notion of what a Ford is, then we might find that our system satisfies all of the criteria placed upon it, even though it is, to the casual observer, two vehicles.
Consider an alternative case: say we have the Escape, and we buy all of the parts needed to assemble a Focus, except the engine. Initially, by all accounts, we possess a vehicle and a pile of parts. Then, we remove the engine from the Escape, and start bolting Focus parts on to it. At this point, we have a vehicle without an engine (is that still a vehicle?), and a pile of parts. At what point do we declare that we no longer have a pile of parts, and instead have a Ford Focus? That’s the problem here: the robot definition doesn’t specify how we might make that decision. To the outside observer, while the appearance of two robots or two vehicles may seem self-evident, in reality, the robot construction process more closely approximates this procedure, and, in my opinion, ought to be treated as such.
The catch in the car example is that there is usually a clear definition of what constitutes a vehicle for registration purposes. Each vehicle frame and each vehicle engine is given a serial number. Typically it is the vehicle frame’s serial number that is registered, not the vehicle engine’s. Thus the registration rules (in most provinces/states, I presume) are quite clear that the vehicle is the frame… and that you can swap out engines as much as you like, so long as you comply with all safety and emissions guidelines. You can read the rules and clearly predict how they will be interpreted.
FIRST has no such definition of what a robot is. You cannot read the rules and clearly predict how they will be interpreted in this case. I disagree with the assumption that the robot is what supports the various configurations… that is neither stated in the rules, nor obvious. Does this mean that the wheels are the robot? The tires?
There will likely be a new rule generated for next year, but in the meantime you deserved the benefit of the doubt and official recognition for your creativity.
And thanks for the clarification on the motors and such.
There is no doubt that the definition of a robot is pretty much not defined. Actually, I could not find ROBOT defined in the definitions. I will be interested to see what the GDC replys with. The example in <R12> illustrates a basic drive train platform with two versions of game piece manipulators, not two distinct drive train platforms. Besides, <R12> deals with weight, not the basic robot. <R09> specifies ONE ROBOT. As soon as you move the RC from one basic drive train platform to another basic drive train, you have created “TWO ROBOTS”. The officials are powerless to make any formal rulings on your robot design until the regional actually starts and you bring your robot for inspection. Regardless, you still have the option to choose one or the other for the entire regional which in itself is a good plan. If your more robust drive train with the manipulator was an attachment to your smaller speedster, I would have said you were OK, as long as your speedster stayed attached to the larger drive train while competing. You would then have been able to detach the larger drive train/manipulator from your speedster and used only the speedster if you wanted. I do commend you for your effort.
EDIT: If you were permitted to do this, what would keep teams from puting a half dozen robots in their crate and then deciding which robot(s) they bring to the inspection station? Or, if they find out that the one or two they chose don’t work well, then return to the inspection station with something totally different after a couple of practice matches?
Part of me does agree with Jason, there is no clear definition of ROBOT and since this appears to be an isolated case, you should have at least been given the benefit of a doubt this season.
I disagree with you. The issue is what defines a robot, Is the robot that chassis or the robot controller? It’s much like what is a person, the brain or the body.
In my personal view the robot controller (brains) is the robot. The rest is just attachments.
At what point does the “modular” become a new robot? When someone changes wheels? Arms? chassis? where is the line?
It truely saddens me to see that even in FIRST, innovation and inspiration is shunned and punished because it does not ‘conform’ to their perceptions of what is supposed to be.
Too late now…but I think a way to have done what you wanted legally would be to have a small drive base (perhaps a 2wd squarebot) to which you add a larger framework with two more drive wheels, and the mechanism. I think the problem is that you have two mostly complete robots (minus electronics), not a complete robot plus some other parts.
In reading the replies thus far, I have thought the solution put forth by Jim above is actually acceptable. Remember that in my original post I did not specify a base nor did I define a robot as a particular assembly of certain components for the simple reason that the robot section of the rules does not. I was just rendering an opinion based on the data present in this thread. However, I have been thinking about this problem throughout the morning and I have read through Rev E again and let me tell you what inspectors must look for while making these decisions.
Electrical:
Under R50 a robot and it’s electrical components must be wired as shown in the Electrical Distribution Diagram. In this case, there are two such distributions. Not provided for in the rules are two main breakers, two Anderson connectors, two Rockwell blocks for main power distro, or two places in which to connect the main battery. Under R43 only one main battery will feed the robot. In this case you could interpret this rule either way but in strict interpretation an attachment should be fed from just one main distribution and one main battery not from either of two separate electrical systems. Under R55, the robot controller is fed from one 20 amp circuit breaker, not one of two.
Mechanical:
Under definitions…“MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on
the ROBOT.” Please note the singular reference of ROBOT as it is used throughout the ROBOT manual.
<R09> Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition. That ROBOT shall fully comply with all rules specified in the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition manual.
Under the first item in the Robot Inspection Checklist (which references a variety of rules) the robot and attachment(s) must fit inside the sizing box unconstrained. It was not mentioned if the robot passed this test.
Now certainly you could find other examples in the rules but when looked at in total, you can see how I came to my opinion. Each of the items mentioned imply that there is a logical electrical flow from one main battery through one main circuit breaker to one power distribution block to breaker panel(s). Logic follows that an “attachment” would be fed from breakers on the existing panels not from a separate power distribution. Everything points to a logical device that can be called a robot as it stands alone. You can consider your own logical tests but each regional team must consider all of these and more when determining if a team is in compliance. You make the call on this one. Can you really call Speed Racer an attachment? If so, how do you meet the other tests.
Now all of this being said, remember that I applaud this team’s thinking outside the box. I do not wish them to be penalized nor am I chastizing them for their unique design. An inspector is responsible for keeping the playing field level by insuring that a robot is in compliance with the rules via the Inspection Checklist. I even agree with Jim above, if Speed Racer, the battery and control system and power distro somehow fit into the larger robot frame, (even if Speed Racer’s wheels were off the floor) and the larger robot frame derived power from the smaller and both fit in the sizing box unconstrained, it might be a legal robot in all of the definitions we have been trained to inspect.
Al, if they had all their electrical in one unit (e.g. 1 RC, 1 main breaker, 1 distribution block, 1 main battery, etc), would that be legal from an electrical standpoint?
Eric,
I am trying to show that no one specific rule will qualify a robot. It is a variety of tests. Your example begins to make a distinction between a 'robot" and an “attachment”.
Thanks, Al, for sharing your perspective on this. As a long-time FIRST inspector, your view is particularly helpful in the discussion.
In the case of Fezzik and Speed Racer, one electrical board was moved back and forth between the two drive base configurations. There is only one main breaker, one Anderson connector, and one Rockwell block. (There is more about this in the Multi-configuration Robot Description that we submitted to the official Q&A.)
Each of Fezzik and Speed Racer fit inside the sizing box unconstrained. If necessary for sizing, we could have placed Speed Racer on Fezzik, but that would NOT have been one of our starting configurations.
Ken,
Thanks for the clarification of only one electrical board having all parts on it. Unfortunately, that makes it harder to make a decision from afar. Let’s wait and see what the GDC decides. Anything beyond that is speculation. BTW, I know the GDC folks do watch CD from time to time and are likely reading his thread. They do not ask for my input so any of what I have posted is my opinion only and does not come from any discussion with them or any FIRST staffer. Any similarity in opinions is purely coincidental.
Hmm that is kinda disappointing. It does seem that they don’t understand that the two configurations use one set of bumpers that weighs exactly 15 pounds. That set includes 6 separate bumpers; we just choose to not put all of them on at one time. It doesn’t matter as long as we cover 66% of the frame, right?
The part about rule <R114>: We only have one robot. According to us, the “robot” is the electrical board. The two bases are the attachments. All parts would be presented at the inspection. The rule says that we can use a subset of the mechanisms in a match, which we would have done.
I guess the point which makes or breaks the decision is what you define as the “basic robot structure” in rule . We call that the electrical board. The GDC calls it the robot frame.
Yeah, but I think that was the thing. They still have 2 separate systems and although they made them fit in the rules, it was still 2 separate systems and from a certain point of view, two separate robots.
It really is too bad. I was looking forward to watching speed racer.
I believe that the game design committee’s response is flippant and not in the spirit of first. The design presented was incredibly creative and their own ruling would seem to make the 1519 design legal.
Unless I’m mistaken
“A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT”
would make their design legal.
The barb about lawyering at the end of the statement was unnecessary and not at all characteristic of the teams attitude as the have attempted to resolve the problem.
I’m still of the opinion that the RC is the robot and any additional parts are mechanisms, but I guess first would rather keep their competitions drab and beat down innovation.
Their point with the bumpers is not all could be attached legally to your robot at once. They would have to, as I understand it.
Edit: and the speed racer was not providing functionality on the fezzik configuration and vice versa, correct? I mean, since they’re not providing functionality they can’t be called mechanisms.
So this means that, in theory, a team can’t have differing bumper configurations? Say that sometimes they want to use a full 100% enclosing set, and another time a minimal 67% set?
I don’t dispute the GDC’s right to call this 2 robots vs. one, and I don’t think Ken and the rest of team 1519 dispute it either. But I don’t think the GDC should have accused them of attempting to lawyer the rules, when there is no clear rule defining what a ROBOT is. As I pointed out above, this is a completely valid interpretation following FLL rules, where the ROBOT is specifically defined as the NXT/RCX “brain” plus anything attached to it. In the absence of a FRC definition, 1519’s interpretation of the ROBOT being the required parts - RC, Rockwell, Fuse block, etc - plus various attachments (which in their case includes frames, motors and wheels) is reasonably valid.
Perhaps a ruling should have been requested of the GDC during build season, but any team submitting a Q&A takes the risk that other teams will copy their designs, and 1519 took the alternative risk that their unique design would be allowed. They were not prohibited from playing because of the ruling, they were just restricted in their game play. That’s the risk they willingly took.
