So, for the purpose of the OP with the intention of having a “backup” effectively, would it not be legal to have all the mechanisms for a second robot, separated (with everything for both robots weighing under 120lbs) and have them all inspected as different configurations you could put your robot into to comply with I03/I04. Yes this does require you to assemble the different pieces, but if you built your robot to be extremely modular it could be quite easy to do, I think. (Getting everything under weight would be the hard part) If I were a judge and saw a team successfully do this I would lobby for them to get a robot design award even, because, if legal, this could be a really cool idea.
NOTE: The process here of exchanging mechanisms would be done to “one robot” as in, there would never be two fully assembled robots for said team at any one time. It would be similar to “heavily modified street cars” built for racing, they still call it whatever name it started as, but the only thing left of the original car is some obscure chunk of plastic under the car or something like that.
Keep in mind the under current rules, you can have a complete spare robot in parts regardless of weight as long as it is brought in under bag rules. You can swap out like for like components without re-inspection. You can add/remove inspected mechanisms to your hearts content without re-inspection. The relevant section is the 2018 rules is section 9 Inspection and Eligibility which is too long to quote here. The head referee and the LRI can decide your robot needs re-inspection anytime they want to for any reason they want to.
While technically not required, if you are planning to use the robot in different configurations you can have the RI note on the inspection form. Major repairs should be reinspected even not required by the letter of the rule.
In car racing circles, creative interpretation of the rules is only considered cheating if you are caught. While not totally absent in First, lets hope is doesn’t become the norm.
Question for the masses… Would completely replacing your alliance partners robot be the ultimate cheesecake or not in the spirit of First competition?
I feel it is worth pointing out that in both instances of robot swappery that The Zebracorns have taken part in, the where-abouts of the RoboRIO have come into question as it pertains to this rule (or what were corollaries for it at the time).
I’ve got popcorn and I’m watching this thread so do carry on!
I think what you’re trying to do is get someone to argue to you that simply splitting a robot in two to get two identical robots could be legal (it couldn’t), when that’s not the only possible end result here, per the quote below.
This is why EricH’s examples are, in fact, relevant, because no one said your superstructure “robot” had to be assembled. It could simply be a set of modular spares that could be a second robot if you wanted it to be, such that two robots are never fully assembled at any given time.
Of course, trying to follow what everyone is really trying to say is approaching tedious and tiring as it is, so maybe I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about.
As an answer to Noah’s original question…
Yes you may build more than one robot but, you may only bring one to a competition. To a reasonably astute observer, if two identical assemblies that are in bags are brought to a competition, and said observer recognizes each as a robot then you have violated the one robot rule. The LRI in conjunction with the Head Ref and the FTA will determine if in fact you have brought two robots and they will decide the course of action to take at that point. Often the team will be asked to remove one from the venue or the second robot will be quarantined in the inspection area until the close of the event.
If you bring a robot that has an additional assembly that is not a “robot” and you choose to use this assembly as part of your competition robot, it must satisfy all rules. In particular it must be weighed and sized with the robot and it also must maintain whatever volume is specified for that year’s game (as mentioned several times above).
Please note that the majority of the ROBOT RULES specifically use the singular “robot” as it relates to the one robot rule for competition. For 2019 you may theoretically build two robots, bag both of them and only unbag one robot for a competition. That single robot must then be fully inspected to play at that event. Also note that the rules do allow you to remove your robot from the bag, completely disassemble your robot and reassemble into a different robot while at a competition in which you are registered only during the times that the pits are open. Any robot that you wish to compete with at that event must be inspected prior to playing in any match. Should you choose to remove a mechanism that is not functioning as intended (without modifying any other part of the robot), you do not need to be reinspected. You can make repairs without reinspection and reinstall the mechanism. If you redesign or make modifications to that mechanism, the robot must be reinspected prior to any match. Please give the LRI fair warning of your intentions so they can prepare. Do not expect inspectors to reinspect your robot on your schedule, give them a fair amount of time to complete the task. Be sure to review the rules about competing (including having a team member in the player’s station) when your robot is not inspected.
None of this discussion prevents your from bringing spare parts, additional COTS parts or other assemblies that are allowable under the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE or other robot rules. However, do not bring a second robot with the intention of using parts from said robot as spares. Disassemble the spare robot at your build space prior to traveling to the event by removing any items you feel are needed and will be allowed under that year’s rules.
I can’t answer for Al but as much as you can possibly give them. When you know you think you are going to do something interesting, tell them. LRIs are your friends in these instances - though some of their comments on CD make them seem otherwise at times.
I have not argued. I have explained how breaking up the superstructure would not invalidate the inspection. The fact that you choose to stay on “this is the only way it is” is not my problem.
To be 100% clear, I cannot be more clear: Breaking up the superstructure would not invalidate the inspection of the BASE ROBOT.
Parallel (not the same) case: Batman and Robin, from 148 in 2015. Remove the tethered unit from the base unit. This does not invalidate the base unit’s inspection. OK? Is this clear? Is there ANYTHING that would cause the base unit of that “two-robot pair” to be illegal if the tethered unit was removed?
I will not proceed further until this question is answered. Once it is answered, I’ll know if we are talking from the same point. If we are not, then further discussion is pointless until we are. (Because that robot-pair is arguably an exceptionally good analogy, the next step would be to assume that the tethered unit was capable of functioning without the base unit.)
One final point: Because of the FRC definition of robot, and what it includes, the whereabouts of the RoboRIO and the radio are, as marshall pointed out, exceptionally important. Without those, it may be very difficult to tell if a “superstructure robot” is in fact a ROBOT or simply looks like one, even to a Reasonably Astute Observer. I actually know for a fact that 148 brought a spare chassis into an event in 2008, legally, even though it looked exactly like their robot.
Yes, we definitely will need stronger, less qualitative definitions when the bag goes away. In 2015, we saw a lot of sub-30lb, fully functional devices built by another team tied to a partner robot via tether and hastily decorated with team number plaques for the receiving team. The general community consensus, though a bit rough around the edges, was that this was pretty cool. Game design has been less supportive of this kind of action in recent years, but the rules, in theory, have been equally supportive – we’ve seen it less simply because withholding allowance and frame perimeter rules have made replacing/enhancing large parts of a robot’s useful functionality harder than it was during Recycle Rush.
If you will recall, FIRST briefly banned this kind of action, then reversed course completely when community backlash pointed out the absurdity of cases banned under their catch-all rule like sharing speed controllers with crimped terminals. Rather than attempt to write a rule which distinguished between these cases, FIRST made the choice to just let teams do what they wanted, but I think they’ll have to take a messier approach this time. Taking the bag away is, by nature, going to take away a lot of the limitations to what one team can give another.
Which can be a good thing, and I look forward to seeing the good that will come out of it. But, as an extreme hypothetical, in 2020, under a liberal interpretation the logic which gave us cheesecake, it could conceivably be legal for a team to bring in 3 robots, slap their alliance partner’s numbers on two of them, and play each and every match, qualification and elimination, with triplets. I think it is clear that we don’t want this, and should support a stricter definition of “robot” than we have now so that this doesn’t happen. Stricter, yet also, as quantifiable as it can be – this isn’t the kind of thing that should be left as a grey area to be decided by a particular event’s LRI on the spot.
2015 was rather unique in the robot perimeter rules. Robin was more of a mechanism than a complete robot. It didn’t have independent power or controls. But the answer to your question is the base unit was completely legal without robin provided all the robot rules are followed. IE if the tether became separated during the match the robot (singular) would be in violation of G25. But they could have competed in a match without Robin being present. But you already knew the answer. :]
Robin, however, by itself does not meet the requirements of R1 so attempting to play Robin without Batman would have been against R1.
That is a little difficult to answer. If a team makes a major change, the entire robot does not need to be reinspected, usually just the change. However, if the change required the robot to be reconfigured, with electrical, pneumatics or motor movement to effect the change, then a full re-inspection would be required. Major changes will require a weight and size check obviously. If the inspector had performed the previous inspection, then the re-inspection is likely to go fairly quickly, 10-15 minutes, perhaps. When I say give us a chance, I do not mean stop by inspections on your way to the field for a match. An inspection under those circumstances could cause you to miss the match.
LRIs would like for your team to come and discuss the changes you plan on making and give you some methods that may make your team more likely to succeed with those changes and never miss a match. All of us have significant experience (my rookie year was 1996) and we really want you to succeed and have a great event.
I will tell you, that I have seen many teams over the years, decide to make significant changes at the events that drastically change the weight and center of gravity on their robot. If they have had a lot of practice time on the original design, this change will likely result in the drive team having difficulty for the remaining matches. I have seen time and time again where a drive team over drives or over compensates for a robot that has significantly changed.
I do want to say something about what constitutes a robot definition. A robot that is missing a control system (roboRio, PDP), still can be a ROBOT. For instance, if a team can turn that mechanism into a driving robot in the same time it takes to change bumpers, it is a robot.
And one last thing, robot designs from long ago should not be used as reference material because the game rules that year and answers on the Q&A may have allowed some of that design to take place.
BTW, I was asked a similar question over the weekend in Minnesota. It brought to mind a team at Champs during Lunacy. They came to champs intending to put fans on for propulsion. This team had already one two regional events. I cautioned them that a significant change as they proposed would be disastrous. As it turned out, the fans were finally installed and inspected with only one or two matches left in the qualifying. In my opinion, the team may have lost a chance to perform on Einstein and perhaps win the entire event. It broke my heart to watch them but there was no doubt it was a team decision.
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.
