Reusable visual element

FIRST General Forum
1

Our team and school mascot is a Dragon. Our rookie all star robot resembled a plywood dragon. AOC resins is a team sponsor.

We have the idea to build(in preseason) a Dragon’s Head to be used as a persistent year to year decorative item on our robot. The eyes would be 2 OLED screens, brain the connected microcontroller, teeth remnants of the rookie plywood bot, all encapsulated in clear vacuum chamber degassed resin.

It would be undeniably cool, and in the FIRST spirit, but is there any way it can be legal?

It is built in the preseason. Doing it during build season is a waste of precious time.
It would be a fabricated item retrieved from the prior robot each year.
It contains more than 1 COTS device that cannot be separated once built.
It would need power. How would it affect legality if powered via PDB vs internal battery?
How does it affect Cost Accounting Worksheet? I believe we would just list the cost of the 3 COTS devices (2 screens and microcontroller. maybe battery if allowed) every year about $100.
If we need to include outside labor to build the mold, mold cost, or sponsor donated material cost, its well over the $400 single part limit. Once molded, it certainly is a single part. It significantly eats into the $4000 allowed total cost of robot.
Are there other rules it could potentially violate?

Despite all the rules it violates, it does not provide any game advantage. It promotes FIRST goals of sponsor cooperation. I believe it is in the spirit of FIRST.

I vaguely remember rule exceptions in previous years for decorative items but cannot locate them now. Is this the sort of thing that merits its own R14 exception like bumpers and battery assemblies?

I’m putting that question out there specifically for anyone reading that might have influence over 2019 rules before kickoff. Is there a more effective place to pose the R14 exception question?

R14 in its current state might provide a distasteful workaround. If we were to make the Dragon"s Head an integral part of a bumper or battery assembly it might be considered legal, but we would rely on generous interpretations by robot inspectors year after year. That workaround has the problem that it now creates a game advantage. As bumper or battery, its weight would is not counted.

FRC 5002 Collierville TN Dragons
Mentor Dustin Maki

2

If it’s not legal on the robot, you could mount it somewhere in your pit on or your robot cart instead. (Really creep out some pit scouts:) )

3

To put it simply, no this is not legal (under 2018 rules). No fair reading of the rules would allow this. Here’s why:

R14 is pretty clear on the issue. You cannot include a custom part or any assembly of parts on your robot if it was made before kickoff (except for a few exceptions). It doesn’t matter if the assembly provides a competitive advantage or not. It doesn’t matter whether it’s powered from the main battery of a USB battery pack. It doesn’t matter if it was made by the team, a team sponsor, or purchased custom.

The only exceptions to R14 are for:
• The operator console (i.e. not a part of the robot)
• Bumpers (which are positively defined* in §8.5, and don’t include decorative elements)
• Battery assemblies (which are positively defined* in R05-B to be only a legal battery and one Anderson cable)
• one COTS electrical device with connectors added, shafts modified, etc.

Your decorative element doesn’t meet the criteria for any of these exceptions.

If you were to make it during the season (so as not to break R14), you would get to the other issues you raised:
• From R39, you can power your microcontroller (i.e. COTS computing device) and LED panels (i.e. peripheral devices) from a USB battery pack.
• You would certainly need to list all of the COTS devices (microcontroller, LED panels, battery back, etc) on the CAW, unless you got them from the KoP or FIRST Choice.
• If the molded part is made by a sponsor who is considered a “team member” then you can leave the labor costs cost off the CAW. You would still need to account for raw material cost at fair market value, even if it is donated. If the molded part is purchased from a non-sponsor company, you need to account for the raw material and labor costs on the CAW. If that comes to over $500**, it’s not legal.

In my opinion, not only is this not legal to make before kickoff, but it shouldn’t be legal. No matter what you claim about it not providing a competitive advantage, it certainly helps you win certain judged awards like the Imagery Award. That in and of itself is an unfair advantage.

  • Most rules in the manual are negatively defined (you can do anything except these things). These rules are positively defined (you must do it this way) at least in part to prevent lawyering of the rules like you are trying to do

** The R12 single part price limit was raised in 2018 to $500

4

Not trying to be a downer, just pointing out what I see

Advantages I could see someone argue:
Better chance at imagery award
Winning imagery award in districts = points
Helps you stand out which may lead to scouts remembering your robot which may lead to an advantage when being selected.

I think in reality I think it’d be pretty tough to plan to have a dragon head the same size and shape of every robot. In 2016 that likely could have precluded you from going under the low bar. In 2018 that could have gotten in the way of just about any lifting structure.

5

It sounds like your team needs to think about what it’s goals are. Building robots that perform as well as possible or building robots for their aesthetic appeal or something in between.

As Andrew pointed out, a decorative element such as your dragon head is likely to severly compromise the game playing elements of your robot in many years. It is also weight that would be counted towards your robot weight.

In terms of imagery, if that is the only element, you will have a hard time winning an Imagery Award. My impression is that the Judges are looking for a unified “imagery theme”.

Planning to “rely on generous interpretations by robot inspectors year after year” or even for one year is a bad strategy since the rule will change from year to year and you cannot expect the same amount from leniency from every inspector.

The only way I can see it being possible for you to install such a decorative element on your robot year after year is to make it small in volume and very easy to re-make (or purchase) each year. The most common solutions is to paint all or part of their robot and/or use stickers of the team logo.

6

Good responses, thank you.

Regarding our motivations, it started as just preseason musing. Our team is building a parade float currently so visual elements are the focus right now.
We quickly realized it would violate competition rules, but I always teach that it is important to understand the intent behind the rules; if it cannot be understood, question its existence. (question, not ignore) In this case, we opined that the rule intent was to prevent unfair advantage. We didn’t see this as unfair advantage, so I raised the question here whether or not an exception was warranted.

“In my opinion, not only is this not legal to make before kickoff, but it shouldn’t be legal. No matter what you claim about it not providing a competitive advantage, it certainly helps you win certain judged awards like the Imagery Award. That in and of itself is an unfair advantage.” -AriMB

I hadn’t considered the impact on judged awards. Point taken. However, the rules in question are in the GAME manual. Judged awards are based on different criteria. In theory an Imagery Award winner need not even pass inspection. What other reasons do you think prebuilt decorative items shouldn’t be legal in principle? Clearly, it IS illegal. Just probing for opinions in no particular direction.

In previous years’ robot testing several people simultaneously wanted to see real time status info, but there is only so much space over the drivers shoulder. The screens in the eyes can also display realtime status info. So that was a practical, rather than aesthetic reason, but there are other legal solutions to that.

I was thinking it would be nice to have a consistent visual element year to year so it is easier to identify our robot in blue alliance videos where the number cannot always be read. That purpose remains unserved. As mentioned, some years, it may not be practical to mount the head. Of course game functions have precedence.

Given all of that, a cost/benefit analysis to see if it is worth spending the time, money, and effort for a decorative pit only element; not likely. But it might fit in next year’s float budget.

A question remains for other robot parts built in the same process. The resin donated by our sponsor must be accounted for at fair market value. Got that. But the molds are machined at an outside shop that is not a sponsor. Do we need to account for any of the mold cost?

May the molds be legally built preseason? Assume that we will publicly post any mold plans preseason as soon as they are generated.

As a point of comparison, a team we compete with regularly has a carbon fiber 3D printed robot frame. To my knowledge, they do not include the 3D printer on CAW and do not rebuild it in season. It is a tool, as I would consider mold tooling. Just looking for confirmation before we make the investment.

7

If having a consistent year-over-year theme is important, consider making a dragon head logo in photoshop or similar software, then getting large stickers of the design printed out and put on your robot each year. Maybe with Led eyes, or something. We have often used the polycarbonate shields as a surface for putting our team logo. We’ve also included a powder coat paint job in a combination of red and white (our team and school colors) for a number of years. Lots of teams do similar things and have good success with their imagery without compromising robot performance. Some good examples would be teams like 1011, 1538, 1983, and 1986. I know they rock on the field and in imagery as well.

8

Tools aren’t part of the robot. Molds aren’t part of the robot… but, they do contribute to the cost of the parts of the robot, IMO, because they are used to build those specific parts of the robot and nothing else. If you get something from VEX or AndyMark that is molded, part of the cost of that–likely a very small portion–is the cost of mold making and maintaining.

Question: Does your sponsor pay for the molds, or do you? If the sponsor pays for the molds, you could probably consider that as part of their sponsorship. If you pay for the molds, I think you need to very carefully and specifically talk with the mold-makers about becoming a sponsor. (Molding and mold-making is actually a very interesting process, and one to get used to. I’d have that talk anyways, see if you could get a shop tour for the team at any rate.)

As for the rest… I would reach out to the Team Advocate, and ask that some guidance be included in the 2019 Manual on molds/molded parts. Failing that, a question to the Q&A (We have stuff molded by a sponsor, but the molds are made by another shop. Do the molds fall into the build timelines and cost accounting?) would be in order.

9

I think your team has an excellent idea to display your sponsors and show a bit of team spirit, and I hope you can get this worked out at some point. However, I should point out this part of the manual:

The intent of this manual is that the text means exactly, and only, what it says. Please avoid interpreting the text based on assumptions about intent, implementation of past rules, or how a situation might be in “real life.”

10

People have already commented as such, but no. This would not be legal under 2018, or really under any modern rules manual.

But I’d recommend looking at another team you compete with, 3966, STEMpunks. They’ve won the Imagery Award several times-- a couple at SMR, and one on the World’s stage.

I think you can look at their robots, and more importantly their whole team to see why. Their robots fit very obviously into the design and imagery motifs, but they do that mostly through coloring and surface appearance of their functional robot parts. They do slip in non-functional decorations every now and then, but overall, their robot’s performance is never seriously detrimented by their imagery.

Building the dragon as you describe might go over fantastically as a pit decoration or mascot costume. A dragon costume with animatronic wings and OLED eyes? Sounds awesome. But I don’t really see any advantage in having that be a continual fixture of your robots each year.

11

This would work well for that type of theme based decoration.

I think that if done well, it would be great on the drivers station looking out onto the field… with your team number, it sure could be eye catching on match videos and in the pits.

We have themed our driver station with a painted Lexan lid system the display sits in. There are voids in the paint for led’s to shine through.
Our lids can be changed out with different game relevant theme if we like.

You can then theme the pit and robot as mentioned with decorative paint or stickers… I think a sticker of dragon scales… overlap them and you can “dragon-ify” anything…

Go with it… You can always 3d print a mini dragon head for the robot to match each season… so many possibilities…

This way there will not be an issue of legality… Let your sponsors do some of their magic without restrictions too.

Good luck with this

Aloha

12

I have to add to what others have already stated. Anything on the robot must be compliant with all the robot rules. That includes inspection for safety, attachment, size, wiring, electrical and construction during the build season.
As to the molds and legality, the molds are not used on the robot, so I don’t think they can be discussed under the robot rules. Please be sure to review the 2019 robot rules (when they become available)for any that may apply.

13

Coming from a team that really likes their imagery, under the current robot rules, the best answer is to incorporate it into the driver station or cart or pit.

Besides, you never really know what you’ll have to put on the robot year to year. Locking into the robot answer limits the technical direction going forward.

14

Al,
Thanks for responding.
“As to the molds and legality, the molds are not used on the robot, so I don’t think they can be discussed under the robot rules. Please be sure to review the 2019 robot rules (when they become available)for any that may apply.”
On this issue I don’t think we could have received a more authoritative answer.

For anyone that thinks making molds preseason is an advantage… maybe it is, but it is also an expensive risk. Preseason molds may be rendered useless by game elements. Even with premade molds, the part still needs to be laid up, cured, and demolded. That can take as long as ordering and receiving a part.

Cothron,
Great example in 3966 STEMpunks. When I was CSA at SMR I had a chance to work with their team and robot. If anyone deserves Imagery award, they do. They can keep it, those costumes look uncomfortable. If memory serves, they were one of our early influences for using python and swerve drive.

bobbysq,
Ideas have inertia, like a wave. Crashing against the rocks of a rule naturally pushes you into all the nooks and crevices shaping the idea to fit(rules lawyering). Lacking sufficient inertia to overcome the rule, the idea recedes, but not before expending its energy, becoming something else. Sometimes repeated similar waves against the same rock change the shape of the rock(rule exceptions).

The rules came into being with intent, implementations of past rules, and affect things in “real life.” To get the full benefit of the rules, we cannot ignore that. But there is no practical way to capture all of that backstory in black and white. At some point you need to stop writing rules and say, “whatever we wrote, its enough.” Anything not in the rules… isn’t in the rules, even if it was intended to be. If a rule has unintended consequences, those consequences become a necessary part of the game. Rookies need to fully understand the rules, so there are no implied rules leftover from prior seasons. The rules aren’t affected by weather, parts shortages, scheduling conflicts, etc If it doesn’t mean that, then I guess I just don’t understand. That section always seemed a bit strange to me.

Design:
I like the additional design suggestions. In previous years I’ve wanted a clear panel high up with our number on it. 5002 when drawn stylistically is a palindrome, so unlike most numbers it looks (sort of) correct from either side. 5002 could also be rendered to look something like a dragon body, with our head on top. Unfortunately no one on the team claims to be an artist. Our engineering sketches class bore that out. Would anyone like to take a crack at some renderings?

15

I think it’s terrific that you’re actually giving thought to these rules. Not everyone is so thoughtful.

This year I was talking to a team at an event and mentioned to them that I liked how they had made a copy of a distinctive ornamental part from one of their previous robots. And I was told, “that’s not a copy, that’s the same part we just pulled it off the old one.” The student telling me this seemed to be very proud of this part, so I decided not to burst his bubble, but I sure would have if it were not his team’s last event of the season.