In the past few years, there has been a few times at competition where something breaks on our robot, but we don’t really have time to fix it due to an upcoming match. I recently came across 148’s Bolt, which weighed 61 pounds with battery and bumpers (wow) and the thought occurred to me: is it legal to build two identical robots, which combined weigh in under the weight limit, to then bring to competition and drive one at a time? So you drive the prime until elims or until something breaks, then drive the copy until it’s repaired. I doubt this would ever be used or if it would be practical but would it be legal?
From the 2018 game manual:
Conduct Rules
Compete with only one (1) ROBOT. Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team may enter only one (1) ROBOT (or ‘Robot’, which to a reasonably astute observer, is a ROBOT built to play FIRST® POWER UP℠) into the 2018 FIRST Robotics Competition Season.[BLUE BOX] “Entering” a ROBOT (or Robot) into a FIRST Robotics Competition means bringing it to the event such that it’s an aid to your Team (e.g. for spare parts, judging material, or for practice). Spare FABRICATED ITEMS may be brought to the event in a bag or part of a WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE.
This rule does not prohibit teams from bringing in robots from other FIRST programs for the purposes of awards presentations or pit displays./]
Violation: Verbal warning. Repeated violations will be addressed by the Head REFEREE, the Lead ROBOT Inspector and/or Event Management.
You would need the robot equivalent of two kids, one on the others shoulders, in a trench coat posing as an adult. The second robot would need to be part of the first for inspection, since you cannot have 60lbs of spare fabricated parts.
And you’d need to not break any of the rules on number of batteries, air compressors, CIMS, etc.
It might be a fun thought experiment, but in the end it would likely be too much trouble to get through the inspection.
Oh, so 1519’s 2008 robot(s). Cool.
Current rules allows as many fabricated parts that can fit into two bags. no weight limit. So you can bring parts to build as many robots as you want as long as they fit in the bags. There is a rule against building you spares into something that looks like a second robot, but not having the parts to do so. Quoted rule in the post above. The inspected robot can only weigh 120 lbs. Limitations on what can be on the inspected robot would prevent you from having two inspected robots regardless of the weight.
I expect there will be a lot of additional rules in this area to go along with no bag in 2020.
If it was part of the robot for inspection, wouldn’t the robot’s inspection be no longer valid if you removed the child from the other’s shoulder? At that point, you’d need a new inspection and you’d be in violation of the two robots rule.
Good point.
Interesting… never noticed that before. 
As a matter of fact, the robot’s inspection would still be valid, for the “supporting” robot alone, OR for the combination of the two. However, should the “supported” robot be the main robot at any point thereafter, then the rule Jared cited would be in play.
As an inspector I’ve referred a couple teams to the LRI for having an assembled second robot in the pits–or blocked them from bringing it in in the first place. Don’t care if the PARTS are there, just don’t have them assembled.
For some rules reference (2018 Manual–see 2019 for any changes for that season): I03 says you need to bring it all to inspection, BUT can play with a subset of mechanisms. I04 says you need to get reinspected for changes (all except a list, including I03).
Read rule I04 again.
Exceptions are listed in A through F (unless they result in a significant change to the ROBOT’S size, weight, legality, or safety.)
F. additions, removals, or reconfiguration of ROBOT with a subset of MECHANISMS already inspected per I02.
While F does provide the exception to remove mechanisms, it’s nullified if it results in a significant change to size, weight, legality, or safety. While I don’t see this modifying safety (at least, not for the worse), it would significantly change the size, weight, and legality.
Size/Weight would be cut in half.
Legality would break now that you’re bringing two robots.
As a result, the inspection is no longer valid. Are you reading that differently?
If they inspected in both configurations (base + superstructure, AND base-only), which I should point out that they are required to do, per I03, then they are simply going from one previously-inspected configuration to another previously-inspected configuration. You do not have to re-inspect when changing inspected configurations, unless (for example) you would break a robot rule if both were on the robot at the same time (common example, two superstructures that combined put you over the weight limit, pick one per match, you MUST inspect each time you swap).
Doesn’t that entirely defeat the purpose of said robot on shoulders of other robot “loophole”?
If they inspect in all configurations, that means they’re still at the initial problem, they fail the inspection for having two robots. Placing them on top of each other to make a single SUPER robot would momentarily get around this problem, as posed prior.
If they then split the robots, the inspection is no longer valid unless this configuration, the one they’re trying to avoid getting inspected, is also inspected.
As the entire point was to NOT get all configurations inspected, then how exactly is my reading of this incorrect? Or, do you agree that the change is significant enough such that it would pull the inspection if the only tested configuration was robot on robot?
Talk to 1285 from 2015, they built 2 robots for their first 2 events and went back and rebuilt 1 bot for their last.
Even if the rules allow for it, more than likely it will be more advantageous to build a single robot.
Are you saying they brought 2 robots to the same event? Or, they built one for each?
The topic here relates to bringing 2 robots to the same event. The question was whether or not a smaller robot would allow for the duplicate robots to come in under weight. As someone pointed out, rules were added recently to only allow teams to bring a single robot to competition. 2015 would be prior to that point if they were bringing 2 to the same event.
Let me put it this way, so as not to go too far down the rabbit hole. Let’s take a 2018 robot, which has a lift AND an Everybot dumper. Both systems are present on the robot at inspection, both systems are OK to go through, everything is legal. (I know of a robot that was like that at one time.) But, the lift fails somehow, and the team wants extra time with a match coming up. So they remove the lift, lock stock and shooter, and play the match with just the Everybot.
Per your interpretation, they must get fully reinspected, because they removed the lift (losing significant weight in the process). Most inspectors I’ve worked with would start that conversation with “Go to the field, good luck, come back when you’re done repairing”–and then somebody would saunter over to the pit to see what was up a few minutes later. The REPAIR would need to be reinspected, likely as a courtesy (“we changed this piece out for a spare” or something like that), on reinstallation. But not the removal. (If the inspection sticker was on the lift, there could be issues. But that’s able to be worked around.)
Also, please note that I very specifically did NOT include “superstructure only” in the initial inspection list of configurations (thus, not all configurations were inspected, per rule). I DID include both base alone and base with superstructure. That means that the superstructure has been inspected but only as part of a “superrobot”. Show up at the field with just the superstructure, and there will likely be some interesting looks at best–99% chance the Lead Robot Inspector and Head Referee pull you off the field for a non-inspected robot.
@maxxman: 2015 rules were… weird. 148 had 2 (or more) robots as well. BUT that was allowed as long as they were connected by a tether on the field, and both together fit in a certain size constraint when not on the field. Quite a few robots had tethers to one outlying piece or another. Some happened to have that outlying piece be a second robot.
What does ANY of that have to do with what’s being discussed in this thread?
Yes, volunteers show flexibility to the rules when teams are clearly trying to play within the spirit of the rules to ensure everyone has the best experience possible.
If we discuss the topic contained within this thread, we have the following scenario: a team wants to bypass the “only one robot” rule by creating two identical robots of no more than half the maximum weight to ensure both come within the allowance. In order to pass inspection, they combine the two robots in some way. Once the inspection passes, they split the robots apart.
This is NOT due to malfunctioning subsystems being removed and worked on.
This is NOT due to a legal configuration inspected as part of the original inspection.
This IS an attempt to get around the “one robot” rule.
This IS playing in violation of the spirit of the rules.
Essentially, every point you’ve made trying to suggest this hypothetical robot would maintain a valid inspection shows it wouldn’t.
-Inspect all configurations- If this is done, it fails inspection with the two robot configuration
-Remove subsystems that significantly modify weight- Point out a conversation would get started about the re-inspection required.
I’m confused as to what point you’re actually trying to make. Are you making the point the robot discussed in this thread would be legal? If so, please explain how. If not, then yes, we agree the vast majority of robots are designed within the spirit of the rules and volunteers would do everything they could to help teams fit within the rules to get the most game plays possible.
I am trying to answer questions posed by someone who doesn’t seem to be understanding my answers. So I’m trying parallel situations to see if SOMETHING gets through.
If we discuss the topic contained within this thread, we have the following scenario: a team wants to bypass the “only one robot” rule by creating two identical robots of no more than half the maximum weight to ensure both come within the allowance. In order to pass inspection, they combine the two robots in some way. Once the inspection passes, they split the robots apart.
This is NOT due to malfunctioning subsystems being removed and worked on.
This is NOT due to a legal configuration inspected as part of the original inspection.
This IS an attempt to get around the “one robot” rule.
This IS playing in violation of the spirit of the rules.
And it would not pass inspection the first time. The very definition of Robot requires that a Robot have a control system and Bumpers–and R63 and R64 would shut down the inspection on the spot, because you can only have ONE RoboRio, and ONE radio. (2018 rule reference) On top of that, the bumper rules would cause significant headache. Could it be done? Possibly. Would it be obvious? Probably.
Historical note: There has been a team that tried something like this–the aforementioned 1519 in 2008. Due to some confusion with various rules (like the definitions of “Robot” that year) I think they had the best chance at getting through inspection of anybody that’s ever tried. They defined their control box as their robot and the rest as attachments, IIRC. GDC ruled them illegal on one of the bumper rules, two robots, pick one. The next year the definition of Robot changed.
Essentially, every point you’ve made trying to suggest this hypothetical robot would maintain a valid inspection shows it wouldn’t.
-Inspect all configurations- If this is done, it fails inspection with the two robot configuration
-Remove subsystems that significantly modify weight- Point out a conversation would get started about the re-inspection required.
Your initial question was, and I quote, “If it was part of the robot for inspection, wouldn’t the robot’s inspection be no longer valid if you removed the child from the other’s shoulder? At that point, you’d need a new inspection and you’d be in violation of the two robots rule.”
What I think is happening is a rather simple miscommunication. I interpreted the question, as asked, as referring to a robot, singular, specifically the base of the two*. If I’m not mistaken, on review, you’re referring to robots, plural, when stacked for inspection**. Or possibly you’re referring to a robot, singular specifically the upper of the two***. If the third interpretation is the correct one, it loses its inspection status when it’s not on the base robot–and if it’s a full second robot, is subject to removal from the premises at LRI’s discretion and instructions. If it’s the second one, then there would be issues AT inspection and it wouldn’t pass.
*“robot’s inspection”
**“robots’ inspections”
***“robot’s inspection”
I would also like to point out that I very specifically omitted a configuration from the inspection process–the “superstructure-only”–never ever ever said that this was done, please stop saying that I’m saying it was done. If a team actually did something like this knowingly, and was caught, I would expect serious penalties coming from the LRI among others. But we’re assuming a team tries doing that.
I never liked this rule, it’s a bit ambiguous and could run aground of the Ship of Theseus conundrum if taken too literally. I’d prefer the rules written such that all teams must obey weight limits (for the field ready robot and spare/additional parts) and the robot is in an inspected configuration when on the field. That might lead to too many innovative designs though.
Fortunately we haven’t broken this rule, as we always go through re-inspection after adding new rivets to the robot, as I’m sure all other teams do as well.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Back a few years I ran into a team who added a lightweight subsystem to their robot, and figured they were good on weight so they didn’t need to be reinspected. They were wrong–on top of the inspection violation, they had a robot rules violation, which led to questions about whether or not they’d put that subsystem through inspection.
I do suggest to teams thinking about making changes that they at least let the inspectors know ahead of time. If the inspectors aren’t doing anything they might drop by and inspect as the change goes in. If they really aren’t doing anything they’ll offer assistance.
The answers weren’t getting through because you weren’t discussing the topic. I hadn’t taken the time to consider all potentially irrelevant scenarios. I was sticking to what was asked in the thread, my apologies.
I’m fairly certain a team trying to combine two mini-robots into one robot for the sake of inspection would be capable to leave connections for the roboRIO and radio in place without actually placing a second of each device. This isn’t anything of interest to the conversation here. The question was simply could they combine the two, one on top of the other and use that to get around the rule. That definition also isn’t accurate. You’d want to look at C05. It just needs to appear to a reasonably astute observer to have been built to play the game. It requires neither radio nor roboRIO to meet the definition.
Fully aware. Also, irrelevant.
Thank you for the incredibly condescending lecture on grammar. Now, let me reply with a similarly condescending lecture on context and reading comprehension. Someone posed a scenario where a team submits a single robot for inspection. If we’re discussing that robot, the inspection would fit the “robot’s inspection” you so eloquently pointed out in my quote. The intent of them posing a single robot for inspection was to avoid having two robots and thus violating C05. In that case, their intent is to avoid having robots’ inspections take place because they only want a single robot. It’d be grammatically inaccurate to state “robots’ inspections” when they’re intentionally limiting their inspection to a single robot.
When you take the context into account, you realize the entire discussion has been about the single robot as quoted from the original remark:
The adult costume version of the two combined make the single robot for the purposes of inspection. As my remark was a reply to this, THIS is the context that matters. It wasn’t a miscommunication. It was lack of contextual awareness.
Whether intentional or otherwise, this is exactly what you’ve been saying by arguing. The original comment posed the “superstructure-only” configuration as a way to get the second robot successfully into the event. I pointed out breaking up the superstructure would invalidate the inspection. You stated it would not. I asked you to explain how it wouldn’t. You’ve argued. Yes, we’re assuming a team tries that. In fact, that’s the whole basis of the conversation. Thank you for finally joining.