2020 - Team Update 09


Wow, game-breaking update


This completely messed up our design :frowning: hopefully it doesn’t hurt many other teams.


They were doing so good with the updates too…


All those teams who trimmed electrical output leads while it was against the rules have been let off the hook. Thanks, GDC!


@Matt_Boehm_329 @Eaz3 @MikLast Stop, guys.


How can you ask them to stop, I don’t understand why you also aren’t freaking out because of this update. I have no idea if this season will be salvageable now or not.


I’m glad this is the kinda updates we get in week 5? Of build. Always good to see


You joke, but this was in response to Q&A question 239 asking about exactly this.

I wonder when we’re going to get an update addressing 242 and 237 though… I’m a little concerned that at least 237 wasn’t resolved, considering that Zebra is probably one of the best things to happen to scouting.

He’s right, we should save our panic for when we have a really big one on the scale of 2019’s Team Update 5.

I can see requesting people to stop posting sarcastic exasperations if they are interrupting a constructive conversation about the team update. Until then, go nuts. (but a respectful level of nuts)


And here I was expecting the GDC to issue their earliest-ever “no updates” update. Silly me.


I’m still very concerned about g10 and g11 and would like to see a change (at least to avoid the tech foul double whammy) but it seems like others don’t really share my fear so maybe I’m just paranoid :scream:. Guess we’ll see what happens :man_shrugging:



Didn’t see that, well that’s halfway there, there should be a similar constraint on g10 though

In that case, you could avoid the tech foul entirely by breaking both G10 and G11 at once.


I think this guy gets it.

The way I read the rule combination is this: If you’re in violation of either one of them, Tech Foul. If you’re in violation of both, G10 takes precedence and you only get one Tech Foul. Looks like a nice way to minimize duplicate penalties. We’ll see how it actually plays out.


Those are tough questions.
242 asks whether the BOM $5k limit applies to the union of all configurations, or each configuration separately. If the union, it will break designs or encourage exploiting I4 for the BoM in the same way I5 prohibits exploiting it for weight. If each configuration, it puts an additional inspection burden to record this, and ideally to do a visual inspection of the configuration for each match to ensure that teams don’t put on a combination of parts which puts them over the BoM limit.

Q237 is Zebra motionworks. If I understand it correctly (I may not), it sends real-time position information wirelessly, and thus violates R63.

R63. No form of wireless communication shall be used to communicate to, from, or within the ROBOT, except those required per R58 and R62.

It would be easy to say no. A deliberate answer indicates that the GDC is attempting to determine if there is a feasible, enforceable way to allow Zebra without permitting teams to violating the spirit of R63.

Someone from zebra will have to fact check me here, but I’m pretty sure the tags that you put on a robot aren’t powered and don’t actively send signals to an external receiver. They are simply detected by sensors around the field, but there is no active communication happening between the tag and the sensors.


That is my understanding as well, that the tags are passive RFID and therefore don’t provide any form of active wireless communication

Yeah, I think R63 may complicate things, (are the tags even considered part of the ROBOT?) though I was thinking more along the lines of FIRST making a decision on if they would allow events to employ this technology or similar technologies in general.