I’m aware of the unique perimeter rules of 2015. That’s what enabled that robot pair, along with several other cool robots.
And this is what I’m after. A “base” (Batman) and “superstructure” (Robin) robot, played together, is not an issue. Playing the “base” alone is not an issue. Playing the superstructure alone IS an issue, UNLESS it’s reinspected. Reinspection would raise significant issues, including the “two robots” question.
The logical next step I was going to make is: Now suppose that Robin had a means to rapidly attach a control system, or had its own control system. Obviously the latter case is an issue–two control systems on one robot doesn’t pass muster. In the former case, I would say there’s still an issue. Might not get caught by the first inspector. Might not get caught by the second inspector. But attempting to play Robin as a legal robot without playing Batman would result in a sudden flurry of discussion and inspection, likely after the match with Robin sitting idle on the field during the match unless the powers that be are nice enough to allow it to be removed.
From the 2018 game manual With the usual disclaimer about past and future rules.
I will leave it to Al and Marshal (Marshal put down your popcorn) to argue when a subset of this stops being a ROBOT. For those new to this, the Zebras (FRC900) precipitated some rule changes by bagging both their practice robot and comp bot and bringing them both to an event. First has not had a week 0.5 since then.
As you know 2015 was an convenient year since bumpers were not required. Anyway placing the required control system and power on Robin would require re-inspection rather or not Robin was inspected with Batman. To me at least, that much change would be a complete inspection. If it was something that could be done in the same time frame as changing bumpers. it would make Robin a ROBOT by Al’s reading of the rules and not legal to have at the event.
I’m fairly confident your team is exactly why the rule was written a bit more ambiguous in C05. Unless I’m mistaken, your most famous attempt was in Steamworks, the year before this rule was written. Is that poor memory? Or, did you try the same thing in Power Up with inspectors similarly worried about the roboRIO?
I quoted the original comment that spawned this in my last reply. Someone suggested a way to get around having two robots was to make a superstructure to pass inspection. I pointed out when splitting them up, the inspection wouldn’t be valid any longer. EricH has since been trying to argue that it is (while not actually discussing it at all and instead bringing up examples that exist prior to the rules changing or things that simply don’t make sense within the context of the conversation).
Could you bring a group of subsystems? Absolutely (assuming weight allowances or with the premise of two half weight robots the excess subsystems could be in the bag not assembled into a robot to get around allowed weight outside of the bag). I wouldn’t argue this and haven’t. I’ve argued that you couldn’t simply create a superstructure to get around the rules as was stated.
You’ve failed to explain how it wouldn’t invalidate the inspection. You haven’t even begun to attempt it. Here’s what you’ve explained:
teams can have multiple configurations of a robot inspected and each would be legal from that point moving on
if damage occurs, inspectors show latitude allowing them to remove the subsystem and then get reinspected after repair
countless irrelevant examples that only exist prior to changes in the rule
You need to be at least a little bit clear. You’ve yet to show any evidence that under the current rules, this would be true. How can you justify it? I’ve pointed out the rule you cite has an exception for significant weight. Half the robot has to be considered significant.
I’ve pointed out the moment the superstructure is split, we’re looking at a C05 violation.
You need to reconcile those two points to even attempt to be clear.
Isn’t relevant. In 2015, C05 wasn’t written to make it illegal to have two robots. It didn’t invalidate a 2015 inspection because the 2018 rule didn’t exist. However, it does invalidate the 2018 inspection because the 2018 rule does exist. “OK? Is this clear?”
It’s a poor analogy for a variety of reasons. The most important two are the rules were different allowing it and I’m fairly certain 148 had both configurations inspected.
In the case posed earlier in the thread, the rules don’t allow for two robots and they intentionally avoided having both configurations inspected as two robots violates C05.
If you’d like to have non-pointless conversations, point to a single example in 2018 where this makes sense. If not, you’re citing rules that are no longer relevant.
Again, 2008 doesn’t matter. You cannot possibly know anything based on something that happened in 2008 in this conversation.
Unless marshall corrects me above, it’s a safe assumption C05 was written specifically because of the Zebracorns. They’re a very creative team and are excellent at “lawyering” the rules. If a clear definition of a robot is in the books, they’ll likely find a way to get around the definition if they want to bring two robots. C05 is specifically left vague. The whereabouts are no longer important. Can you look at the robot and believe it was designed to play the game? It’s a robot.
The superstructure robot isn’t what matters for the reasonably astute observer. The two smaller robots are. I don’t doubt the superstructure could pass an inspection. But, the attempt at a superstructure was never to have a large robot. It was to get around C05 and enable a team to bring in two smaller, identical, robots. The superstructure, while assembled, should be able to pass an inspection. Once split apart, it shouldn’t.
Really, if you want to have a conversation that leads anywhere, you need to be able to answer one question. It’s the same question you’ve been asked multiple times.
Once the the superstructure is split apart into two robots, how would this setup not violate C05 as written in 2018 (not 2008, 2015, or even 2017 all before it was written)? If you can explain that, you’ve got a point. If not, you’re either arguing for the sake of arguing or trolling, I’m not sure which.
Jeff, just out of curiosity: have you EVER been an inspector? Not that it has anything to do with this discussion, but it would be nice to know.
NShep, I think he’s thinking that A and B stay assembled for inspection and possibly onto the field for competition.
If the examples I’m including are in fact irrelevant, I wouldn’t be including them. So instead of just throwing them out as irrelevant, maybe think about WHY I think they’re relevant, despite being under non-2018 rules. I’ve thought about using a couple of other examples and extrapolating, believe me–but they weren’t relevant to the discussion.
By the way, now would be a good time to point out that contrary to Jeff’s belief, C05 (2018) WAS in the 2015 Game Manual. Because the Conduct section wasn’t a thing back then, you’ll find it as T7. “T7 Each registered FRC team may enter only one (1) ROBOT (or ‘Robot’, which to a reasonably astute observer, is a Robot built to play RECYCLE RUSH) into the 2015 FIRST Robotics Competition.” “C05. 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 UPSM) into the 2018 FIRST Robotics Competition Season.” Go ahead, verify them, I’ll wait. (Feel free to verify in other years, too. That rule has been a thing for many, many years.)
So, here is where I think we most strongly disagree:
–Jeff: If the top robot/superstructure/Robin is removed, the entire inspection is invalid because of either the large weight loss or the two robots.
–Eric: If the top robot/superstructure/Robin is removed, the base/Batman still has a valid inspection, despite the loss of weight. The superstructure/Robin does not.
–What Jeff thinks Eric is saying: If the top robot/superstructure/Robin is removed, the entire robot is still valid.
Here is the key part of my point: If the full robot is brought in to inspection, as is required, and the robot passes inspection, it is NOT two robots. It is two attached subrobots, or one robot. If the inspectors think, for any reason at all, that it is two robots, it will be one robot–or sans its second part–very quickly, unless the team can prove that it is one robot. (Right, marshall?) If that upper subrobot is removed, and placed on the field as the primary robot–with appropriate modifications to make it legal (bumpers, control system, battery, etc–stuff that it can’t have by rule when it’s part of the full robot because the other half has them)–without inspection, then the team has not only violated C05, but they have violated I04. C05 penalties go into effect (I04 doesn’t have any penalties listed.) Odds of getting caught? Pretty good, not perfect but pretty good. And again, the inspectors would get involved and one part would be out the door–this time, without the option to prove that it is in fact one robot.
Regarding the loss of weight being significant: Half the robot is significant. I don’t think we disagree on that. However, half the robot weight off is a lot less significant–to a typical inspector–than half the robot weight on. It’s generally a disadvantage to the team doing it, at least initially–it’d take a real nitpicky inspector or LRI to take a disadvantage and make it worse by requiring a full reinspection any time a team removed something large and tried to play. (The other item I would comment on: The definition of “significant” is left open. I would posit that it can vary based on things other than sheer magnitude of the weight or size–another time, maybe.)
Just to add a little insight…Rules are not written in response to just one team. While I joke that there are “WildStang Rules”, I am confidant that other teams were thinking outside of the box at the same time and performing miracles that were not considered during the original writing of a rule.
I may have confused readers with my post above. It is legal to bring two sealed bags with a robot in each. However, only one robot must be chosen to be entered in that event. I was considering the teams that have brought in two robots, one in a bag and the other not in a bag. (Yes it has happened more than once in each of the last few years.) Please consider the confusion that teams will generate when two robots appear in a pit, whether they have control systems installed or not. It makes it hard for everyone including the LRI, the Lead Queuer and the Head Ref.
Above all, please refer to the current year’s competition rules in full. They are the only rules (plus any Team Updates and/or Q&A responses) that matter for the current year.
Only because you said please. Al is a true, one a of kind, class act. This statement proves it. Truthfully, his entire post does, but this statement caught my eye.
It does, but why? You can already put the spare mechanisms in the bag. Why spend the extra time/effort to assemble “spare” robot, find a way to attach it to “game” robot, split apart the two pre/post inspection, then disassemble the second? I didn’t assume that’s what you were saying because honestly, it doesn’t make sense. If you have time to build the spare subsystems, just put them in the bag and save yourself a lot of time and hassle.
Very sparingly. As you may recall, that’s why I originally deferred to you prior to not getting the question answered. In Texas, there’s a stronger foundation of RIs than there are CSAs/Refs for many events. As a result, I tend to perform the latter roles.
I think we need to again look at the comment I replied to.
The comment I replied to intended to have both of the robots be a single robot for the purpose of inspection. As my reply was to point out that wouldn’t make it legal, your arguments saying I’m wrong imply you believe it is legal or you didn’t read the original comment.
Future comments you’ve made show you agree with me. You just don’t realize it.
This is honestly something that should have been posted several posts back. It’s good to be aware the rule wasn’t written any differently. It was my understanding this had changed. That said, I’ll address the next point (order changed for coherency).
The first statement isn’t logically true. Many people include arguments that aren’t relevant simply because they think it helps explain their point. Your inclusion does not inherently mean they’re relevant. Now, as to why you may think they’re relevant, that can help get through to you if we’re arguing the same point. You’ve never been arguing that point in any of this. That said, I’ll look again at your Batman and Robin and show how it remains irrelevant even without a rule change.
Correct me if I’m wrong, both the solo Batman and the Batman/Robin configurations were inspected.
If so, this doesn’t bring anything to light when discussing robots intentionally kept together for the purpose of inspection. In this case, the team was open about their intents and designed a pair of robots meant to work together within the rules of the game. Their intent is not to split the two apart to cannibalize from the second.
Batman and Robin were very different in design. I feel it’s safe to claim the design of Robin was more of a subsystem of Batman than an individual robot. While it aids the task of Batman, it wouldn’t be able to play the game alone. To a reasonably astute observer, one could make the argument this robot was not designed to play the game.
When the two robots are identical, none of those arguments are in place. They’re designed identically. If one is designed to play the game, the other is as well.
It’s already been mentioned rules were a bit interesting in 2015 in part due to lack of bumpers. The same quirks we saw in that year wouldn’t apply to this year. Similarly, the beautiful 3310 robot from 2015 wouldn’t have been legal in recent years either. (Extension well beyond frame perimeter allowances).
You’re focusing on the fact there were two robots. But, it’s so far from the posed situation that it doesn’t really shed any light.
The first point has to be a misrepresentation of my points. I’ve stated I don’t believe the Robin example is relevant. Showing that Robin works does not show the idea posed in this thread works.
Let’s correct that (from my perception):
–Jeff: If the top robot/superstructure is removed, the entire inspection is invalid because of either the large weight loss or the two robots.
–Eric: If the top robot/superstructure is removed, the base still has a valid inspection, despite the loss of weight. The superstructure does not.
–What Jeff thinks Eric is saying: If the top robot/superstructure is removed, the base still has a valid inspection, despite the loss of weight. The superstructure does not.
I’m pretty sure we agreed to that when I corrected your incredibly condescending, and inaccurate, grammar lesson. Yes, we agree. If the full robot is brought to inspection and passes, there is one robot.
This has essentially been my point from the start. If somehow this bypasses the initial inspection by the RI, it’s something that would cause for pulling the inspection. If this was the intent, the team would need to show “very quickly” they only have a single robot instead of two. This is why I say you agree with me. You just haven’t read what I replied to.
[quote=EricH;1812756 C05 penalties go into effect (I04 doesn’t have any penalties listed.) Odds of getting caught? Pretty good, not perfect but pretty good. And again, the inspectors would get involved and one part would be out the door–this time, without the option to prove that it is in fact one robot.[/QUOTE]
Again, this shows you agree the inspection wouldn’t be valid once the two are split if the single robot passed inspection. Do you believe there’s a way a team can fix that? Sure. But, I never said there wasn’t. In addition to removing it from the building, I’d expect the option to disassemble would also be afforded the team along with the suggestion to handle it as disassembled parts in the future.
is a lot less significant–to a typical inspector–than half the robot weight on. It’s generally a disadvantage to the team doing it, at least initially–it’d take a real nitpicky inspector or LRI to take a disadvantage and make it worse by requiring a full reinspection any time a team removed something large and tried to play. (The other item I would comment on: The definition of “significant” is left open. I would posit that it can vary based on things other than sheer magnitude of the weight or size–another time, maybe.)
Bold for emphasis. This is why I say most of your points are irrelevant. Yes, we agree it’d be incredibly harsh for a RI to take a disadvantage and make it worse by adding more on top of it. This is even assuming a team removing a broken subsystem could pass the inspection in a couple of minutes while working on the robot. It’s still harsh.
But, the word you used here is important: generally. We’re not talking about a general case. We’re talking about a specific case. In the specific case posted in this thread and now quoted to you twice, the suggestion was to build a single robot from two identical robots with the end goal being getting two robots into the event. As that’s not a disadvantage, anything discussing how RIs/volunteers would handle a team facing an obstacle aren’t relevant. Instead, we’re discussing how they’d handle a team that intentionally is trying to walk a fine line with the rules to get around restrictions. As you’ve stated in this post, you’d agree it would be handled differently. By a seasoned RI, you’d expect this to be handled before the initial inspection is completed. By a RI that misses this, you’d expect it to be handled after the inspection. In neither scenario do you see the inspection being valid until steps are taken to remedy the violation.
At this point, here’s the summary to clear up confusion:
–Jeff: No, you couldn’t build a single robot for the purposes of bypassing the inspection. Once you split them up, it’d invalidate the inspection because your new setup would violate multiple rules. You’d need to correct those rule violates before having your inspection reinstated. As the corrections would negate the value you’re seeking to gain, there’s no point in attempting this.
–Eric: While I agree with that, I’m going to attempt to be a stickler about Jeff saying the inspection wouldn’t be valid initially because at some point, it could be.
That’s really what it comes down to. Again, you either haven’t read what I replied to, what I’ve said, or you’re just trolling. Given your responses, there isn’t any other alternative.
As my original intent was to understand how you believed the trench coat robot would pass inspection and maintain a valid inspection once the superstructure was removed with the intent of being a second robot has now been clarified (you don’t, you were just arguing), I’m going to exit this thread. There’s no point arguing just to argue.
If we consider Game Updates to be rules, which I’d argue they are, we see multiple instances each season where rules are written in response to just one team. I don’t think this is all that important. But, if happens often that one team exposes something the GDC hadn’t considered. This is true whether other teams are looking at it or not or even if the initiating team intended to perform the action.
I don’t think anyone believes there’s any ill intent here. When I point out teams, they are just teams that I know pushed the limits of specific rules. When those limits are pushed, discussion will almost certainly take place and whether the rule itself is rewritten (either in a Game Update or in future manuals) or if there is guidance on how to interpret the rule. In my experience, teams that push these conversations generally take pride in it. “Did you see the Game Update about us?”
That said, if anyone took offense (especially Marshall) for me pointing out his team does an excellent job of lawyering the rules, I apologize.
Now this makes me curious. Given the blue box for C05, how would the bag change keeping the robot in the bag or out of the bag? (For Eric’s sake, this is me deferring to Al knowing he has far more experience with this topic than I do)
“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.
If the robot is just sitting there providing no aid to the team, why would it matter if it came in the bag versus came with the tools? I’d expect if it’s illegal out of the bag, it’d be illegal in the bag as well for all of the same reasons.[/quote]
In this case, I am saying that it IS legal, for a specific subset of cases. I believe you were making a very general statement, which happens to be incorrect in certain cases.
Future comments you’ve made show you agree with me. You just don’t realize it.
I agree with the PARTS of your statement that are correct. I disagree with the ENTIRE statement being correct, because it isn’t.
The first statement isn’t logically true. Many people include arguments that aren’t relevant simply because they think it helps explain their point. Your inclusion does not inherently mean they’re relevant. Now, as to why you may think they’re relevant, that can help get through to you if we’re arguing the same point. You’ve never been arguing that point in any of this.
I still think that you are not, and have not, read the bulk of my posts. I have been arguing the SAME POINT for this entire thread. Obviously my examples have failed to explain it.
That said, I’ll look again at your Batman and Robin and show how it remains irrelevant even without a rule change.
Correct me if I’m wrong, both the solo Batman and the Batman/Robin configurations were inspected. I have no knowledge of which configurations were actually inspected. If both Batman and Batman/Robin configurations competed, then at a bare minimum Batman/Robin was inspected. I would say that given that inspection, the former configuration did not need inspection. The former configuration is a subset of the latter. Legal to play without reinspection.
If so, this doesn’t bring anything to light when discussing robots intentionally kept together for the purpose of inspection. In this case, the team was open about their intents and designed a pair of robots meant to work together within the rules of the game. Their intent is not to split the two apart to cannibalize from the second.
As soon as you start bringing team intent into this, you’re down the rabbit hole. Remember: it’s not what the team intends to do, it’s what they actually do. At least the inspectors can actually ask the team instead of a real-time decision. I’m sure that if you asked most of the teams that tipped/damaged their opponents last year, that was not their intent.
Batman and Robin were very different in design. I feel it’s safe to claim the design of Robin was more of a subsystem of Batman than an individual robot. While it aids the task of Batman, it wouldn’t be able to play the game alone. To a reasonably astute observer, one could make the argument this robot was not designed to play the game.
When the two robots are identical, none of those arguments are in place. They’re designed identically. If one is designed to play the game, the other is as well.
As a reasonably astute observer, I would actually argue the opposite, partly just to play devil’s advocate and partly because it’s correct. Robin was designed to play the game. The fact that Robin only played PART of the game is, to my mind, irrelevant. We see robots only playing part of the game every year. See also: box-on-wheels, gear-only and fuel-only in 2017, Everybot and the vault specialists in 2018. Simply because a robot cannot play the entire game is not a reason to say it is not designed to play the game and disqualify it from being a robot, no?
It’s already been mentioned rules were a bit interesting in 2015 in part due to lack of bumpers. The same quirks we saw in that year wouldn’t apply to this year. Similarly, the beautiful 3310 robot from 2015 wouldn’t have been legal in recent years either. (Extension well beyond frame perimeter allowances).
You’re focusing on the fact there were two robots. But, it’s so far from the posed situation that it doesn’t really shed any light.
I’m well aware of the 2015 quirks. I inspected that year, and was surprised to see a robot with bumpers. Every year has those quirks to one degree or another. In this case, this is as close as we are likely to get to the proposed situation, for a long time–and the quirks are the reason we are that close. I’m looking at that particular robot as two sub-robots, either on its own being (theoretically) capable of playing the game (albeit at a reduced level), that passed inspection as a single robot.
The first point has to be a misrepresentation of my points. I’ve stated I don’t believe the Robin example is relevant. Showing that Robin works does not show the idea posed in this thread works.
Let’s correct that (from my perception):
–Jeff: If the top robot/superstructure is removed, the entire inspection is invalid because of either the large weight loss or the two robots.
–Eric: If the top robot/superstructure is removed, the base still has a valid inspection, despite the loss of weight. The superstructure does not.
–What Jeff thinks Eric is saying: If the top robot/superstructure is removed, the base still has a valid inspection, despite the loss of weight. The superstructure does not.
I’m pretty sure we agreed to that when I corrected your incredibly condescending, and inaccurate, grammar lesson. Yes, we agree. If the full robot is brought to inspection and passes, there is one robot.
What you are currently saying that you think I am saying is NOT what I have picked up from the previous posts. Additionally, I included the “Robin” as an example to clarify my thinking. OK, now that we are on the same page on that…
This has essentially been my point from the start. If somehow this bypasses the initial inspection by the RI, it’s something that would cause for pulling the inspection. If this was the intent, the team would need to show “very quickly” they only have a single robot instead of two. This is why I say you agree with me. You just haven’t read what I replied to.
Again, this shows you agree the inspection wouldn’t be valid once the two are split if the single robot passed inspection. Do you believe there’s a way a team can fix that? Sure. But, I never said there wasn’t. In addition to removing it from the building, I’d expect the option to disassemble would also be afforded the team along with the suggestion to handle it as disassembled parts in the future.
And here, I think is the crux of the disagreement. The inspection would NOT be pulled, simply because the top part of the robot was pulled off. OK? This would be treated–until proven otherwise–exactly the same as, for example, a team removing their lift in 2018. The team is opting to play with a subset of their robot. It’s that simple. Is it significant weight off? Yes. Is it likely to provoke questions? Depends on the design.
But, the word you used here is important: generally. We’re not talking about a general case. We’re talking about a specific case. In the specific case posted in this thread and now quoted to you twice, the suggestion was to build a single robot from two identical robots with the end goal being getting two robots into the event.
**YOU are the one who made a GENERAL statement. **You specifically said that the inspection would be invalid–implied, in all cases. I am pointing out at least one specific case where the inspection would remain valid.
At this point, here’s the summary to clear up confusion:
–Jeff: No, you couldn’t build a single robot for the purposes of bypassing the inspection. Once you split them up, it’d invalidate the inspection because your new setup would violate multiple rules. You’d need to correct those rule violates before having your inspection reinstated. As the corrections would negate the value you’re seeking to gain, there’s no point in attempting this.
–Eric: While I agree with that, I’m going to attempt to be a stickler about Jeff saying the inspection wouldn’t be valid initially because at some point, it could be.
That is incorrect on my end, and from your posts you’re the one changing your position. Once more:
–Eric: Splitting a robot up does NOT, by itself, invalidate inspection*. The actions taken AFTER that split may. If the split-off piece is simply removed and set aside, and is not obviously a robot, then the inspection remains valid. If anything is done with the split-off piece (other than disassembly or removal from the premises), or it is obviously a robot or on the fast track to becoming one, THEN Jeff is correct and the robots must become robot in order to continue play.
This is the exact same thing I have been saying for the last page of posts.
*Witness, again, the teams that play sans previously-attached large scoring mechanisms for a match. Obviously not the same case, merely used to illustrate a point.
Robin was essentially was complicated crate ramp. Teams with robots inspected with a ramp used or didn’t use ramps with their robot without re-inspection. Modifications that require inspection are laid in in the inspection section of the manual. They have not really changed that much over the last few years.
The way I look at 2nd robots, in pit but out of bag, is as withhold. If it’s over the limit of fabricated part weight then it’s out of the pit and locked in a vehicle or impounded at the inspection station.
What important is what the rules say. :] Current rules say there is no weight limit for parts brought in the bag. You can have parts to build any number of robots. You cannot assemble them into something resembling a second robot. I expect many the teams that travel heavy could make up an inspect-able robot from spares. It has even been done on occasion.
So as long as you get it in the bag, you can get WAY around the 30# allowance rule.
Of course you may have to convince the LRI that your 90# of fabricated components arrived in the pits via a bag, and are therefore legal, but that’s a different topic.
What is in the bag has nothing to do with the 30 lb allowance so it is not really bypassing that rule. It will be interesting the changes 2020 brings since the bag will be gone.
clueless, but enthusiastic, rookie team + veteran team with more tools and spare parts than any one team could possibly need + other veterans who step in to help = rookie team with robot playing on the field Friday morning
