Not even remotely offended. You have to threaten to club me over the head to offend me. 
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.
Just when you think you know the rules…
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.
An inspector should have seen your bag at some point, so I don’t know if you’ll need to do much convincing.
At load-in. Inspectors check all bags and tags and ask about the withholding. This statement not valid past 2019, or at either Championship Event.
Can confirm,
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
Right, I know 30# is out of the bag. It just seems like a loophole to bypass the intent. One that we sadly never took advantage of.
We always intepreted ROBOT to mean only that, not Robot + 2 extra intakes, an extra lift, assembled gearboxes and transmissions, etc.
And regarding bobbysq and EricH comments about inspectors looking in the bag, I’ve inspected at many events, including MSC and St. Louis and never had an LRI tell us to look IN the bag.
I have been at an event where the LRI made a team take a second robot out of their pits (because over 30#), where technically its fine if it was in the bag.
Seems like a gray area that should be clarified.
It’s not a “robot + 2 extra intakes, extra lift and gearboxes”, it’s just an overweight ROBOT.
I know many LRIs that would agree with you, but they try to enforce the rules as written rather than what they want them to be. (Not to imply that you would do anything different).
Keeping in mind what they say about only current year’s rule as being valid. Last years rules are pretty clear. They were a couple of Q&As on them as well. In the old days when most teams crated their robot, you were limited by the crate size and weight. The events that I inspect at, all the bags get looked at by an RI, you have to in order to clear the tags. We weigh the withholding. We note anything unusual. Especially with districts it is mostly a honor thing. Only respect for the rules keeps team form adding more than 30 lbs to the robot during the unbag period.
Neither of us said inspectors would look in the bag. I said we’d look AT the bag, he said we’d see the bag.
Now, because bags are somewhat clear, we’ll probably see something of what’s in there, but that isn’t an inspector’s problem until the bag is off.
From the 2018 manual (all emphasis is mine):
The constructive result (and I believe intent) of the rules is not to limit **how much **stuff you bring in with you, but **when **you are allowed to fabricate it.
Thank you so much for taking the time to quote this out, especially C05 which I had totally missed.
(note to self, read the whole manual, not just the robot parts)
Please remember that parts in a bag implies that they were manufactured/assembled/modified/or anything that implies that they are not COTS** prior** to stop build day. The bag rules do not imply that a team can bag anything after stop build and use that as a workaround for withholding.
Fabricated prior to bag day or during an access period (if you have one), correct?
Just to clarify, in 2015 we (1285) had a “twin robot” design where both robots were controlled with one RIO, PDP, etc. When put side by side, the robots fit within the starting configuration constraints, weight constraints, and all other robot design requirements. All of our wiring was run through cable wrap (posthumously dubbed the “umbilical cord”). This was a unique design only really possible due to the unique 2015 game manual.
We entered this robot into two competitions until the students voted to convert one of the robots into a more effective single robot, which we did by using the secondary robot and withholding weight allowance as material for the new combined robot.
To answer OPs question, as per the rules, teams are only allowed to bring in their bagged robot to competitions as well as a certain amount of withholding weight that is custom made or pre-assembled. Off-the-shelf items are included in a larger weight (such as spare wheels, motor controllers, etc.). What our team does is we take assemblies off of our practice robot up until we meet the withholding weight to use as spares, such as an intake, or spare gearbox. I remember 254 coming to the Waterloo Regional in 2014 with something like 4 spare intakes!