a group of COMPONENTS and/or MECHANISMS assembled together to address at least 1 game challenge: ROBOT movement, NOTE manipulation, FIELD element manipulation, or performance of a scorable task without the assistance of another ROBOT
The new R302 will only prohibit “MAJOR MECHANISMS” created prior to Kickoff. This should allow teams to reduce waste by re-using everything from bumper brackets to custom circuit boards to whole swerve modules, rather than needing to reproduce parts that they already have
Isn’t a whole swerve module, a “group of components and/or mechanisms assembled together to address […] robot movement”?
This example seems to bring less clarity to the change, so it begs the question: what’s considered a major mechanism?
From my understanding a chassis with enough modules (2,3, or 4) attached to actually drive would constitute as a major mechanism. A single module alone isn’t really a drivetrain in the same way a kit bot rail with a toughbox isn’t a drivetrain.
Although who knows, I could be wrong with this interpretation. I am definitely approaching this from a metafunction perspective. I think this gets a lot tougher above the drivetrain. Is a turret a major mechanism? Is it relient on an indexer? Is the indexer in turn relient on an intake? I would view those as three separate major mechanisms personally. However, a flywheel, turret gearbox, indexer roller stack or a 4 bar linkage are not major mechanisms. Just my interpretation, I hope for an extensive list to help draw the line and a few blue box examples (one of which is a drivetrain)
Now this is likely going to need some clarification, and I really wish FIRST would release a set of evergreen rules prior to season start with all the minor tweaks… There is no way currently to know if we would be violating the 2025 rule set because it obviously has not been released. Having said that the communication we are getting (big picture) is a great step in the right direction.
That would be my interpretation, yes. Attaching them to rails may be more of a gray area, but you likely want to hold off on cutting that stock until you get the game to decide on bot dimensions anyway.
As an aside:
I don’t think there is anything stopping you from putting together a test bed today and pulling the modules off “as is” for the 2025 bot based on the blog post.
Not to be that guy (I’m totally going to be that guy) but FIRST really did layout the intention of the rule for things like swerve modules. If a team were to make their own and test it on the offseason…I didn’t see anything.
Specifically with swerve modules that are COTS I was under the impression you could assemble those before build season under the previous rules. I101 states that COTS items do not constitute a major mechanism.
“Examples that would generally not be considered MAJOR MECHANISMS, and thus probably aren’t subject to this rule include, but are not limited to the following:
A. a gearbox assembly,
B. a COMPONENT or MECHANISM that’s part of a MAJOR MECHANISM, and
C. COTS items.”
R302 then says
"Custom parts, generally from this year only. FABRICATED ITEMS created before Kickoff are not permitted. Exceptions are: “COTS items, or functional equivalents, with any of the following modifications:
a. non-functional decoration or labeling,
b. assembly of COTS items per manufacturer specs, unless the result
constitutes a MAJOR MECHANISM as defined in I101”
So in my reading of the rules, assembly of a swerve module per manufacturer spec satisfies R302 b., and does not fall under the “unless” statement as I101 does not categorize COTS assemblies as major mechanisms.
So we should avoid at all costs getting popcorn kernels in our robot? As that would make the mechanisms colonel mechanisms, which outrank the major mechanisms?
I think this definition seems the most reasonable, effectively the “fully functioning mechanism test”… so, can this mechanism complete a game objective (including moving around the field) by itself, or with minor modification.
This still begs the question as to whether building something like a drivetrain, then wiring it; adding a RoboRIO, PDP and battery; and writing code would be violating this rule. The drivetrain itself, without any of those components, is not able to complete a game objective, so is it a major mechanism?
Regarding partial drivetrains as Major Mechanisms, I refer to the discussion about bringing spare robots as parts to events. IIRC in that discussion, a fully built drivetrain without wheels is not a ROBOT. If it doesn’t have other functionality, there’s an argument that it’s not a Major Mechanism either.
This really irked be when it came out and I really hope FIRST revisits this decision. A “robot” is not its wheels in reality. Heck, wheels are a consumable atm. If first ties a robot to the existiance of a specific set of wheels we get a fascinating mix of the rules for “a team can only compete at an event with one robot”.
You do raise a good point. Defining purely on function is a slippery slope and not a pure hierarchical exercise (e.g. swerve modules is made up of wheels, motors, etc then a chassis is mad up of modules, rails etc)… pull one wago leverlock and you get:
“Oh look this is not functional! Therefore not a major mechanism!”
A custom swerve made and tested in the offseason might be considered “functionally equivalent” to a COTS module anyway, which was added in 2023 or 2024?
I agree with this. The game design generally dictates that a manipulator for one season is not likely to be very useful or effective in a subsequent season. All the power to them if they want to try and force it to work.
