I promise you that not everyone has that interpretation and have been given trouble about it.
I would argue the same, a single module is just a gear box and in no way can score on its own however 4 of them attached to a drive base is a major mechanism. Regardless a swerve module is COTS/ COTS equivalent and can be reused anyway.
I am aware. The new rule change appears to clarify that this may have been their intention all along.
From the blue box for r302:
Functionally equivalent items are items that closely resemble a COTS item in both form and function. Functional equivalents should be made using similar materials to the COTS equivalents.
A custom swerve module that closely resembles a COTS swerve module in both form and function might have been able to be considered functionally equivalent, but a truly custom module would not.
Why would that have been their intent all along? Why keep the rule at all if their “intent” was to allow for the reuse of any and all arbitrary custom designs that fulfill a similar role as a cots product?
Certainly, I can’t put myself completely inside the mind of the rules lawyers, but by keeping the rule and saying “functionally equivalent” basically tells me that they wanted to address some of the woes of teams (like mine) while not spending a ton of time having to define a new class of mechanism that someone might make ahead of the season.
Our team has been developing and iterating our swerve modules for 6 years now. As COTS swerve modules became more and more prevalent, we found ourselves becoming significantly disadvantaged while other teams pulled a COTS module off the shelf, and we were sitting on our design waiting for kickoff to begin cutting our parts. Building our drivetrain often ate up a week or more of machine time. It was functionally equivalent (function requirement, i.e. it does the same basic things as any other swerve module) and similar in weight/size/overall appearance (form requirement, i.e. you can tell it is definitely a swerve module by looking at it) to other COTS modules in that it was a swerve module. It had azimuth control, drive control, could rotate 360 degrees, etc, however, we waited to build it to kickoff. The pre-“functional equivalent” rule stifled innovation and encouraged more teams to just use COTS parts, when the program should encourage innovation and engineering. We saw the rule change as helpful, but never pushed the interpretation as we didn’t want to get on the negative side of an inspector having a bad day.
1 Like
A swerve module? Or a specific COTS swerve module?
I find myself wondering about the intersection between (functionally equivalent to) a COTS product and a Major Mechanism (anything which addresses a game objective). What if there is a COTS product which IS a major mechanism? Say Climber in a Box - AndyMark, Inc. Is pre-making (a certain style of) climbers legal because there is a COTS version available or is it illegal because it is a Major Mechanism?
If hypothetical company ThriftAndyWestRoad creates and sells a complete swerve drive base product in sizes from 19"x19" to 29"x29" does that mean all teams are free to pre-build something functionally equivalent?
2 Likes
I don’t think the new wording necessarily fixes this problem. It seems like a sideways move from one ambiguous wording to another. What is the intent? I have no idea.
We have information graphical, both printed and on television,
We know the points per minute and quote the data simulation…
From OPR to EPA for every regional competition
1 Like
Based on our conversations with LRIs this season, it’s not the wheels that make it a robot, but the entire swerve module. The only time we performed the swap at a tournament, we had to remove all 4 modules from the quals robot before beginning to attach modules to the playoffs robot to comply with the currently written rules.
5 Likes
I agree with the statement that a single swerve module is not a “Major Mechanism” and that the descriptions are grey.
In my veiw you can put together a frame with your modules before kickoff as withought other electronics it cant solve the task of driving. (this is just my opinion)
as for other mechanisms and the murkey deffinitions of a “Major mechnism” would a pre build elevator for example be allowed? like I know 5940 built an elevator between 2022 and 2023 which after kickoff they used for their alpha bot, but not their comp bot. Now after the new 2025 Rule Updates would an pre build elevator be allowed on the comp bot?
Reading the rule, a “Major Mechanism” which is prohibited before kickoff is a group of mechanisms or components used to solve one of the season specific tasks: intaking, shooting, driving etc. By itself an elevator cant score or even lift game peices, or climb for example, to do so you woudl need to mount hooks, or rollers inorder to “complete a task in that year’s game”
Im currious about what others have to say about all of this. And especially about the elevator example-- we have our elevator from an offseason project and are thinking to keep it around if need be for an alpha bot. It wouldnt go on a comp robot as it is worn down, still currious what yall think?
I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major Mechanism
1 Like
I could while away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers,
Consulting with the rain;
And my head I’d be a scratchin’
While my thoughts are busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain.
Like the Scarecrow, the Modern Major General is ineffective because he lacks a brain.
I don’t like the Manual’s definition of a MAJOR MECHANISM because it includes the notion of addressing a game challenge, which cannot be done without software.
Yeah… for the part about a game chalenge i took it to mean the mechanical side. Like a “Major Mechanism” is has the mechanical ability to complete a game task.