[FRC Blog] Stop Build Day and Shipping

You have always been able to do this, you just have slightly less stringent weight requirements now

They really need to release R5. Because currently bumpers count towards the 150 lbs.

4 Likes

image

No.

2 Likes

This is not the 2020 R5 rule

17 Likes

I agree. Let’s keep this about actual issues.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how LRI’s might interpret which of these rules differently than some teams?

6 Likes

I understand. I was simply pointing out that bumpers would not count toward the 150lbs under the current rule set (assuming that the latest release of rules from 2019 would be considered current until a new set supplants them).

1 Like

“Major Mechanism” might be even more vague than the definition of plywood.

41 Likes

I think the intent is more clear on major mechanism based on their examples.

I feel that one is on teams if they mess it up.

11 Likes

I believe it does. The 150 pound rule seems to replace the withholding allowance which previously included un-assembled fabricated components.

David

Good riddance.

Love the rule set as I understand it. Great job FIRST!

6 Likes

I agree.

Does it provide mobility? Does it provide scoring? Does it provide end game? How about manipulating the field? If so, it’s 99% going to be Major Mechanism.

If it does none of the above without being put together into something bigger, I’d say you’ve got 75% odds of it being OK, with the remaining 25% being mostly the judgement boundary of “it causes the robot to move, but it’s not really a major piece” (like a lot of teams’ L3 climb drivetrains last season–I’d consider the climber a Major Mechanism, due to the end game, but I’d have a much more difficult time with the drive part of the climber on its own).

2 Likes

I think there’s still going to be a lot of arguments about interpretation on this one, but since I haven’t been able to come up with a better definition myself, I can’t complain too much.

Can’t wait to see what their answer is on if they truly mean “built” by the team, meaning it could be designed by another team, or if “built” in their definition includes designed by another team.

If it is the former, then in a year like 2017, I could easily see a team coming up with a cheesecake design for a climber, making documentation on the parts required and assembly instructions, so that another team could “build” it themselves.

Personally, I don’t have an issue with the above, as it would still be supplying a great learning experience for that team.

10 Likes

We have had another FRC team sponsor our team, so based on that rule, if they cheese caked us, then that could then be legal.

9 Likes

This would be illegal since it says in the blue box below the rule:

Attempts to exploit loopholes in the definition of MAJOR MECHANISM in
order to bypass this requirement are not in the spirit of I1 or the FIRST
Robotics Competition. Examples of exploitation include:
a. assembling pieces of a MAJOR MECHANISM provided by another
team
b. receiving a mostly complete MAJOR MECHANISM from another team
and providing a small piece

The scenario you provided would violate a.

6 Likes

It’s interesting they really used this change to go after cheesecake. Everything else is pretty well done and I’m excited to see how this season goes for teams.

2 Likes

I read that as one team physically supplying the parts of the mechanism, not the design like a CAD model.

2 Likes

And another thought. If a company designs a mechanism to sell that is for specifically accomplishing a game task, a team can spend money on that and just use it.

But if a team designs a mechanism to donate to another team that is for specifically accomplishing a game task, a team cannot use it now despite this option saving them money over the COTS options.

If the goal is to ensure teams make their entire robot themselves, then how is selling mechanisms specifically for the game challenge okay?*

*To be clear, I am very much in favor of there being COTS options available to accomplish game tasks like some of the greyt products in the past.

EDIT: Here is an example. It’s 2017 but with the no-bag rules published today in place. I could come up with a velcro climber design ready to easily mount to most robots just ready to go and sell that as a mechanism, and teams can legally use it. I cannot design said mechanism and just give it to teams though because then it violates the new rules.

A smart company would come out with an easy drag-and-drop climber product, and elite teams will now buy multiple of them to have on hand so they can have their alliance partners use them instead of doing traditional cheesecake. So all the new rules really did was cause teams to spend a bunch of money to buy the “cheesecake” instead of make it.

10 Likes

really excited to see the very inevitable, slow moving trainwreck of the obvious way the MAJOR MECHANISM rule will be worked around come to fruition on the hallowed pages of this forum and if we’re lucky, the screencaps from LRI slacks anything else at all

13 Likes

That’s how i read it too. I almost think they would want to encourage a team to come up with a cool design. Post it so teams can share it, build it and iterate on it.

Am i understanding correctly? 150lbs for all configurations of the robot but you can bring unlimited spares and unlimited weight limit on modifications? So basically unlimited “withholding allowance” from previous years?

These were very clear, succinct, and unrestrictive rules for no stop build day. I’m impressed and excited for it.

3 Likes