They clarified later in the thread that it was full module removal to comply not just wheels. So to swap to this robot it would need a full swerve installation (which to be fair isn’t to difficult).
4 Likes
As @QRB mentioned, we had to remove the entire module, not just the wheels to be compliant with the rules. The swerve modules were removed from the first configuration before a set were installed on the second one. On the bright side, HQ has been talking about this since we got it inspected, so I don’t expect it to be around again next season.
2 Likes
We did a similar strategy for a different reason. We pulled the modules off of our practice bot so that we could have it laying around for spare parts if we needed it for our comp bot. This was also allowed by our officials at our event.
It certainly didn’t go down well with all of the teams around us, but it was legal. Likely not something we plan on doing again soon. (But we never know)
1 Like
That is legal weather you disassemble it or not. a fully assembled second clone bot could be brought as long as you did not compete with it. and it could be striped as needed for parts
i guess it depends how you read “enter” i see that as using it to compete. but the blue box has a very different definition.
i really hope they rewrite this rule next year. i don’t like how the blue box completely abuses the word enter to mean just bringing it to the event.
if i was to ask someone if they were entering a swimming competition they would not respond yes just because they were in the building
1 Like
Edit: this is wrong
Bringing a full clone onsite for spares is generally illegal due to the total weight of robot + spares at load-in exceeding ~150lbs (iirc, don’t quote the number).
Enforcement is lax to nonexistent because most teams don’t bring that many spares and it hasn’t been abused to the point of an actual competitive advantage.
Even when we’ve had the weight, we don’t like to load in a full drivetrain spare, it’s a bad look.
1 Like
as far as i know that not a rule? if it is it is being flat out ignored by most teams, most likely due to ignorance
1 Like
No, you’re right, I mixed it up with swappable mechanisms.
EDIT: Yup, can’t find the rule. This year it appears we could bring an entire practice clone (had we built one) for spares, even though it wouldn’t be a great look.
1 Like
The rule against bringing in an entire practice clone for spares is G209. The 150lbs limit appears in I103, but applies to what may be presented at inspection. I104 explains when the use of uninspected parts requires reinspection, and I105 indirectly applies the 150lbs limit to that reinspection. E401 restricts the parts that can be brought in after load-in. I102 specifies the potential consequences of competing with an uninspected robot.
4 Likes
Teams are allowed to bring in an entire assembled set of MAJOR MECHANISMS in to the event for spares, as long as none of the incorporated MAJOR MECHANISMS is the drive base. Spares for the drive base MAJOR MECHANISM need to be brought in smaller chunks, probably measured in fourths 
-Mike
6 Likes
- i have no plans to bring a full practice bot and am presenting this as a hypothetical only because i HATE vague rules and want a rewrite and am continuing this discussion to hopefully allow further clarification in the future
g209 says none of that. the blue box does
and
“enter” was very specifically used instead of bring any other synonym for bring.
the most applicable definition based on surrounding text would be this.
so i would say this is an “inadvertent conflict” and all the “extra parts” they added in the blue box are meaningless since they do not match the origal wording of the rule
please let this rule be rewritten for next year
Edit to add:
I really don’t care about this rule. but I have a problem with blue boxes in excess of a paragraph or 2 following a 1or 2 sentence rule. since the blue box is effectively meaningless. the past few years there have been a growing number of conflicts between rules and blue boxs
2 Likes
I think your concern could be addressed by applying ENTERING as a all-caps glossary word with the specific meaning FIRST intends for it, as well as ROBOT’s glossary definition expanding to cover the process of identifying what is a ROBOT vs a robot-like assembly of MAJOR MECHANISMS?
They could pick a slightly different word in the process, if they so chose, but I personally don’t hate “entering” here.
If FIRST is nervous that it will make the rule less readable to bury both of those definitions in the glossary, they can still include the blue box calling out both of those definitions, basically quoting the glossary.
1 Like
The easiest way to prevent what we did this year would be a change to the definition of a “robot”, as defining the robot by a drivetrain is very much leftover from the era of tank drivetrains. Adding a small blue box to G209 to clearly define what is a mechanism, and what is a robot, and directing people to Q&A for corner cases would hopefully prevent the rules from becoming too opaque for 99% of users who aren’t trying to mess around with the rule
2 Likes