4946 this year has a second robot specifically designed for playoff matches that is smaller/faster at cycling. By removing some things and making it light enough it “is not a robot” by rules definitions apparently.
Definitely taking the rules to the extreme, and was cleared by inspectors at their event a few days ago. Not sure on the whole rules legality reasoning and such, but cool to see a team push the limits to get the most amount of performance.
Both robots pictured here
Is the “Only one robot” rule no longer in the manual?
It is, but by removing some components of the second robot, somehow that satisfies the rule of it no longer “being a robot”.
Again not up to date on the exact rules that allow this loophole, but it was cleared for play.
This may have been cleared, but I don’t like this, and I cannot fathom how this was allowed and I hope they add some clarification in a team update, because this clearly breaks the spirit of the rules, and I imagine many high level teams will follow suit if this is allowed.
If they want to remove a trap climber and install a regular climber for elims, that’s one thing, but that is an entirely different robot, different drive base size and everything… the second you put wheels on it to compete with it, it’s a second robot, which you aren’t allowed to enter.
Right, this looks exactly like the kind of thing that rule is designed to prevent. I have no idea how anyone would deem it legal.
I believe it has something to do with the definition of ROBOT here:
A ROBOT is an electromechanical assembly built by the FIRST Robotics
Competition team to play the current season’s game and includes all the basic systems required to be an
active participant in the game –power, communications, control, BUMPERS, and movement about the FIELD.
Where removing the drivetrain means it no longer can move around the field, and thus is “not a robot”
I’m sure there are more nuances to the ruling, and likely FIRST HQ was involved in the decision.
I also agree, should probably be fixed for 2025 season… That being said it is impressive that they found this loophole and are making the most of it.
G209 says explicitly that:
It seems that wheels define a robot. I would argue that swerve modules without wheels is “most of a drivebase”, but it seems that RIs disagree.
Right… but as soon as they put wheels on it to compete with it, it becomes a robot, does it not?
Any team that I’ve seen bring a “not a robot” second robot, uses it purely as a repository of spare parts to be pulled off and swapped to the robot they’re competing with.
Yes, but the rule is about entering the competition with one robot. You are allowed to take the wheels off of your ROBOT and make it a NOT-ROBOT, then put them on your NOT-ROBOT and make it a ROBOT and get it "re"inspected.
Aaaaand like I said, that seems like exactly the kind of thing this rule was written to prevent.
Honestly? Let them. If they can manage to fit 2 robot variations with all other rules (namely, the weight limits,) More power to them.
1519 wasn’t allowed to do so in 2008 despite making weight.
You can’t enter a second robot mid-competition though. Heck, if you bring your robot home with you after the first day, you aren’t even allowed to re-enter the same robot and compete with it the next day.
The G209 blue box also says:
While “most of its drive base” is a subjective assessment, for the purposes of
this rule, an assembly whose drive base is missing all wheels/treads, gearboxes,
and belts/chains is not considered a “ROBOT.” If any of those COMPONENTS are
incorporated, the assembly is now considered a “ROBOT.”
From the photo, it looks like the swerve modules are entirely present, aside from the wheels. The wording of the blue box seems based more on a traditional tank-style drivetrain, but I think the un-wheeled swerves would count as “gearboxes” or “belts” to most observers, which would make the whole assembly a “robot” and therefore prohibited by G209, would it not?
Does it? You can only get reinspection a couple times until the RI/LRI/HR get annoyed at you. I think the intention is that teams don’t have two robots at once and picks between them for different matches? Though of course having two robots and switching for playoffs might also be against this rule’s intent. I’m not HQ. :P
I am aware, and its why im so interested in seeing this be allowed. 1519 should of been allowed to compete back then, as they followed all the rules and were struck down by a rule being made in front of them at the event. If FIRST had an issue with this, they already had the precedent to slam it down mid-inspection.
Again, I think this is a problem that HQ didn’t anticipate with the swerve era. Honestly, it’s possible to make a NOT-ROBOT with everything but swerve modules (even extra power/CAN connectors) and then plug-n-play swerve modules that have been pre-calibrated at home and carefully taken off. That really goes against the spirit of the rules, but it follows them to the letter.
You are supposed to get reinspected every single time you change something on your robot, and the RI’s jobs are to inspect your robot when it needs inspecting. There are no rules about being inspected too much–but there is a rule about not having two robots.
This scheme here looks like an attempt to end-around a rule, and IMO it looks like they’re in violation of R209 (per GordonW’s post, above). Taking the wheels off of a robot doesn’t make it a NOT-ROBOT, and frankly, trying to game what amount of whatever makes a ROBOT a NOT-ROBOT is kind of gross and against the spirit of G209.
If a team wants to run a completely untested robot for elims, good for them. It would have to be heavily game dependent to ever make sense, and I can’t think of a single year in recent memory where it would make sense at all. Maybe 2018, for RP in quals and scale in elims? But even then, why waste time and money developing 2 completely different robots when you can just make a 2nd identical robot for practice and software?
I see no good reason to legislate this away. Good on them for making it work well enough to get to finals. I certainly wouldn’t take those odds myself.
This thread was split from: Should heavily modification be allowed for alliance selection matches - #11
