Just a quick summary of what’s going on: 1519 built two robots this year. One hurdler and one small lap-runner. The two collectively fit within all size, weight, and budget constraints. The bumpers for the pair of robots weigh under 15 pounds. They argued that the two robots were simply different start configurations. At inspection, they were refused by the GDC. the GDC’s arguement was, basically, that if it looks like two robots, it is two robots.
So, this is what FIRST already gives us for definitions of “ROBOT”.
A FIRST robot is a remotely operated vehicle designed and built by a FIRST Robotic Competition team
to perform specific tasks when competing in the 2008 competition “FIRST Overdrive.”
ROBOT: Anything that has passed ROBOT inspection that a TEAM places on the TRACK prior to
the start of a MATCH.
Now, come up with a definition of ROBOT that would outlaw 1519’s solution to this year’s game.
You don’t need a new definition, the ones present are adequate. Their two configurations/two robots didn’t pass inspection as such, and as such do not count as a robot.
I’m not going to comment on whether or not the decision not to pass them is right or wrong, that’s the subject of the other thread. However, since they collectively did NOT pass inspection, they collectively do not count as a robot, by the definition presented.
The question is simply, how so? ROBOT is rather loosely defined this year. Other than the singular tense given in the first definition, and the fact it didn’t pass inspection, I can’t see anything.
And that’s the problem…they are only allowed to enter one robot, not two.
Apparently you know that there are two robots, and 1519 knows there are two robots (the two robots have different names). It seems to be common knowledge, even though we don’t have a precise definition of what a robot is.
If 1519 had built only one robot, then we would not be having this discussion!
The entire problem with the current definition is that it’s completely circular. The rules talk an awful lot about, say, “the ROBOT will be inspected for compliance with…” If we’re taking our definition as something that’s passed inspection, then this is clearly nonsense and we’ve all been fooling ourselves that we’ve been having our robots inspected. Clearly we’ve instead been having our robots pre-approved as having passed inspection and then having them reinspected to make sure they got it right. Yes this is nonsense. It’s just that no one noticed how silly it is until 1519 pointed it out.
I really dont see whats wrong with what they have done. Basicly instead of switching out a manipulator, they are switching out a drivebase. It is all still run by the same electrons, so theoretically it is the same robot. They meet the weight limitations, which must have limited their design capabilties significantly, equating any advantages they get by have two “robots”. Just because they named them differently, doesn’t constitute different robots, you could name your arms different things and that doesn’t count as two robots.
Simply put I think its rediculous that they were rejected bearing in mind the kept all materials for both robots under 120 lbs. I think they should be aloud to play as they please with either drivetrain. I commend them for attempting to build a mini-bot on its own, but the fact that they’ve designed a second bot, with a different strategy, using the same electrons it quite impressive. I hope if they attend a second regional, the GDC will reconsider and allow the use of both drivetrains.
Hmmmmmm
The intent of the rule seems to be that you can swap out your entire superstructure, as long as both superstructures fit within the rules.
The drivetrain (which in this game could qualify as a scoring robot in and of itself) should parallel: if you build a tank-drive and an ackerman and a swerve, you should be able to swap between the modules provided that they all fit on weight.
so now, what if you took superstructure A and put it on the tank, then decided to switch to superstructure B on the swerve? It’s obviously a grey area.
Battery cable, distribution block, fuse panel with one 20 amp fuse, the RC, a backup battery, and the associated wires to connect them.
For this year, add in a 51" high flagpole, a PWM cable that runs up to that flagpole, and bumpers that cover two-thirds of the perimeter of the robot, and you’ll have yourself the bare minimum.
First of all, I’m personally just fine with leaving the rule as it is right now… or at least as it was before GDC’s recent ruling. If a team can build two functional but totally different configurations and keep it within all weight limits and rules, then let them go for it. But since I have had plenty of space to express my opinions in that other thread, I’ll now stick to the question at hand.
To achive the goal that FIRST appears to wish to achieve, I would simply add:
When considering multiple, removable mechanisms, at least x% of the mass of the robot must be common to all possible configurations.
I would suggest 30-40% would be a reasonable number for X. This fraction of the overall mass would represent “the robot”. Thus a team could still designate what constituted the robot… and swap out drive bases, etc, but there would be some significant common core between all posible configurations.
what 111 had in 2001 was something that would qualify here…these are two robots, pretty obvious to me: “I know it when I see it” -Associate Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
Technically (if everyone wants to play that game) you could define it as one robot, and if I tried real hard there are a lot of things that I could define as a robot, but a lot of that wouldn’t make it onto the field.
I give 1519 credit for trying (never know until you try) but this is not the first time someone has been burned after their robot is already built (Truck Town Thunder I’m looking your way) it is very disappointing for 1519 I’m sure.
Making new threads and going over it repeatedly isn’t going to solve anything (look at some of the collaboration discussions for several years) just take the decision and move past. Remember that your time is a scarce resource.
Robots entered into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition shall be fabricated and/or assembled from COMPONENTS, MECHANISMS and COTS items that are constructed from:
Items provided in the FIRST-supplied Kit Of Parts (or their exact REPLACEMENT PART)
Allowed additional parts and materials as defined in the rules, and in quantities consistent with the Budget Constraint rules (found in Section 8.3.3).
And:
MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts.
Does it say anywhere that you are not allowed to have two distinct drivetrain MECHANISMS?
To answer your question:
Each team will be permitted one and only one chassis consisting of a complete drivetrain, battery mount, RC and the manditory electrical components which will remain as one unit throughout and entire season without changes or modifications (changes to correct rule deficiencies will be permitted). This will be considered to be the ROBOT. In addition, teams will be permitted to add COMPONENTS, MECHANSIMS and COTS as well as any other required items (i.e. flag holder, standard bumpers, team number, etc.) to the ROBOT to meet the objectives for game play.
My overall point here, your two quotes along with <R10> and the definition of MECHANISM seem to support letting Team 1519 do what they tried to do. In order to outlaw their soluiton, you would need to add a new definition.
This is a bit different than the OP’s question as it allows 1519’s configuration. However if I was making the rules these are the changes I would make to try to clear up what is and isn’t allowed. While exact wordings are important, in this case I have forgone them in most of my changes as this is not an actual rulebook merely an expression of intent.
Add in a clause somewhere to the effect of “For the purpose of all robot and game rules, with the exception of R12 and R21, “the robot” shall refer to a desired starting configuration and each starting configuration must be separately determined to be in compliance with these rules.”
-Change R08 so that a “set” of bumpers would have a maximum weight of X lbs. (I am personally in favor of increasing the limit to, say, 20 lbs. even to accommodate robots with a single configuration completely surrounded by bumpers.). In any given starting configuration all or a subset of these bumpers may be used as long as all bumpers used satisfy the rules regarding height, bumper zone and perimeter coverage.
-Change R12 so that it states that when determining weight all robot components and mechanisms desired to be part of any starting configuration shall be weighed together.
-Change R21’s to something like: “The costs of all non-2008 Kit parts and materials presented at inspection and included in the weighing shall be recorded (in US dollars) by the team, and a list of all such
items and their costs presented at ROBOT inspection.”
Feel free to comment/rip open glaring loopholes or weaknesses in the changes I have made.
Slightly off-topic, but according to the current rules we must cost account a mandatory flag holder and mandatory bumpers?
You are in essence defining a robot as a drive base then. Last year a team simply used ramps which folded out at the beginning of the match (no drive base) and were allowed to compete–should this not be allowed?
They’re basically looking for configurations where the individual pieces can be used together as an entire unit, or pieces can be taken off/swapped, no? It seems like their definition on this is seems to boil down to them not allowing separate components that can not be used together in any configuration.
2 manipulators could not necessarily be used together in any configuration either… but let’s try to keep that discussion in the other thread and keep this one to strictly definitions of “Robot”
Correct, and if you tried to enter two manipulators by themselves you would probably run into this same problem. Compare that to two manipulators which can be used in interchangeably on the same primary base unit… you can tie all of the individual pieces together. The ‘ROBOT’ is the individual base unit, and any potential interchangeable parts.
I’ll take a stab… Back in the day teams would put the “robot” on the field and leave the mechanism in the pits and keep workign on it. But needed the robot on the field so they received points if their partner won.
I would think you would need at least the following.
RC
Radio
Fuse Panel
Main Breaker
AB Distribution Block
Team Color LED
Battery
(Based on this years rules) Bumpers
The robot should be built robust enough to withstand impacts from
non-modular “robots”
The OP started a thread called ‘Define “ROBOT”’, asking for a definition of a robot that would outlaw what a particular team came up with as their solution to this game. You just quoted my definition, along with its explanation, and told me it was in the wrong thread
I was trying to answer the original question asked by InfernoX14 and looking at the GDC answer which talked about two chassis. I would certainly agree with you that the team that competed last year w/out a drive base should be able to compete. I could add another sentance: If a team chooses to forego a chassis/drivetrain during their inspection, please be aware that the team will not be permitted to add a chassis/drivetrain in the future.
I was trying make sure that the team would have to assemble something instead of just placing a box of stuff on the floor of the arena. I would not consider ramps that fold out and stay in place a box of stuff.
