Listen to Adam. I was about to say that, because I HAVE seen teams unable to make their first few matches because they did not pass inspection, due to a robot problem, even with the inspectors working with them to solve their issues. And did I mention that this was with an extended inspection time because the inspectors were few in number?
And after any inspection, teams can (and do!) modify their robots. If the modification involves adding something or changing a dimension and it could affect legality, the team is supposed to check with the inspectors before their next match–9/10 times, the inspectors will walk over, go “You’re good”, and walk away. Most of the rest will be weight checks. (I think one of the folks commenting on this thread got bitten by not informing the inspectors of a change that brought the robot’s weight up too high… but still made weight for elims after a hectic lunch break.)
The precedent set last year is that this is not an inspection. I’d force the inspector to note on your form, or notify the lead inspector, if you’re concerned. Not worth the Red Card.
In regards to my comment about not making inspection, the intention of my comment(which, rereading it, I definitely did not make it clear) was that in the firsthand times I personally(and I’m aware you two of infinitely more experience than me, so keep that in mind) have seen, in which a team didn’t make their first matches due to unfinished inspection at districts, it often seemed to be issues that would have required an amount of time that, logistically, would be hard to account for.
Also, in all honesty(and I probably shouldn’t have made the post because of this), I wasn’t 100% what exactly this pre-event inspection entailed. And yes, I’m 100% well-aware that teams can do illegal modifications, but it’s much harder to get caught when your robot is not under FIRST supervision(and yes, I know FIRST isn’t watching every move you make at a competition, but still). Also, I generally try to view FIRST through rose-colored glasses, but I’m well aware it’s not the truth.
The possibility that this could happen doesn’t concern me that much. I believe that 99/100 teams will honestly try to the very best of their abilities to follow all the rules that are enforced only by honor code. And for that 100th team, if the worst they are doing is modifying their robot to be illegal, I am relieved. There are much worse things that they could be doing (not bagging the robot until the night before the event, using a chassis they built in the preseason) that would bother me. But I cannot imagine what a team could do to give themselves such a huge advantage within such a short timespan. It is still immoral to try to do this, but if allowing one team out of a hundred to cheat means that teams who accidentally made an illegal robot get more inspection time to try and get it fixed, the by all means let those losers do what they want. The teams that would actually do that are normally teams that have bad robots whether they cheat or not, and probably won’t do well anyways.
If any change is made it must be reinspected. Making the change means you are playing with an “un-inspected” robot and there are consequences for that. Yes nine out of ten times an inspector will look at the change, see that it is legal and respond “you’re good”. What you don’t see is that person going back to the table and changing the inspection sheet or making a note on the sheet so others will know.
Paul, the numbers are way higher than you imagine.
This year the modifications that were being made with regularity was the addition of blocking devices. Teams made the change thinking, “Hey we’re 20 lbs underweight so we can add a lot”. The reality, there was still a height restriction that must be met. Also, not discussed much, if a robot needs to modify the current robot to accomplish the change (not simply adding something), and the change would have put the robot over weight with the original parts, you can’t go back to original configuration at that event (T08).
The inspection team and the LRI in particular are your friends. They are tasked with making all teams have a great event and they are chosen so that their experience can help you compete. Please include them in your decision to modify your robot at an event. In no particular order, we have seen teams wanting to make these changes during the weekend…
Remove half of the robot since it is not functioning the way the team had hoped.
Adding weight to get better friction for defensive strategies.
Modifying designs to make their alliance partners happy.
Modifying to get an alliance partner to pick them.
Adding free weights, vises, lead, lead shot, water bottles, extra battery and tools to add weight or balance parts of the robot.
Add attachments to change robot dimensions or contact the floor.
anything you can think of while you are reading this…
While many of these can be legal modifications and pass inspection, they are not necessarily the right action for your team. Making significant changes in weight for instance vastly affect driving performance which will take your drive team back to square one. In the finals, a known robot behavior is better than starting off from scratch.
I understand a lot of teams probably end up doing illegal things. But I believe that they at least don’t do them with the intent to cheat. I think in most cases it is just ignorance, and that is a completely different issue with different solutions. I don’t think many teams forgot to bag their robot until the night before the event. But teams may do smaller things illegally without knowing. I agree that teams should talk to event staff with every change they aren’t certain of. But I like to think very few teams purposefully cheat if they know they can get away with it.
If the change requires removing assemblies (to remain under weight), from the robot then all assemblies were not present at the initial inspection under R05. You may upgrade/modify the robot to improve functionality throughout the event, but to reinstall the original assembly violates this rule. You can of course return the robot to it’s original configuration prior to your next event and that inspection process. This policy has been in effect for many years. Prior to that, robots could have numerous assemblies (changed match to match) and only had to make weight with the heaviest one to pass inspection.
Are you saying that there are changes to my robot that I cannot make at an event, regardless of how many times I get inspected?
My understanding of the T08 rule is that if I have 2 different mechanisms which together would put my robot overweight, but individually do not, I could (theoretically) get re-inspected each time I wanted to change my mechanism out. I understand this example is not in the spirit of the rules and the inspectors have no obligation to comply with my request in time for my next match. However, if a team decides to change a mechanism by removing the old one, discovers the new mechanism doesn’t work as intended, I’m under the impression they can revert the robot to the old mechanism as long as they get reinspected with the old mechanism before competing. They CANNOT assume that because the old mechanism passed inspection the first time, reverting after they passed inspection with the 2nd mechanism on the robot is legal *without *reinspection.
Evan,
You may not switch mechanisms/assemblies as you suggest (with regards to both weights). You can make the first change under the premise you are improving functionality or upgrading the robot provided the assembly is manufactured on site or is included in the 30lb allowance (R21). Any subsequent return to a previous mechanism/assembly will violate R05 and T08 if the sum of parts and robot exceed the maximum weight allowance. This rule has been in place so long, I can’t remember the full reasoning behind it. The first year this was introduced was 2004. I call this a WildStang rule as previous to that year, we always made multiple assemblies and changed them match to match to suit the strategy and/or alliance. Inspectors were reminded of this interpretation during 2013 as teams wanted to make changes in the finals, mostly to add blocking devices. Teams were advised of the rules when adding or changing and were weighed following the change. The head refs were then advised to the changes they would be seeing in subsequent matches.
I’m still really disappointed by the decision that was made regarding 1519 in 2008.
I saw it as being a brilliant usage of that “multiple mutually exclusive MECHANISMs are OK as long as all of them together fall under the ROBOT weight restriction” rule.
For those that don’t know, in 2008, 1519 built an electronics board that was totally modular. Then they built two MECHANISMs that constituted the majority of their ROBOT. One, a very small, agile, lapping robot, that was little more than four wheels and motors (Speed Racer). The other, a simple hurdler (Fezzik). The idea being, that they could drop the electronics board into either Speed Racer or Fezzik as match strategy dictated. Speed Racer and Fezzik combined with the electronics board weighed less than the 120lb restriction. The argument was “Does the electronics board constitute a ROBOT, and Speed Racer/Fezzik are large MECHANISMs, or did 1519 build two ROBOTs?”. (The rules have always said each TEAM can only enter a single ROBOT in competition).
HQ decided that 1519 had brought two distinct ROBOTs, and 1519 was forced to play with Fezzik only at their official events.
At an offseason that year, 1519 played with Fezzik, and they had a second drive team play with Speed Racer as “9151”.