Multi-Configuration Robot

[FRC1519]

We have designed and built a multi-configuration robot as described in the document at the following URL: (DELETED) We believe that this design meets all the rules and requirements of a single robot and meets the intent of the FIRST challenge. We would like to have official permission for this robot design to be used.

We are currently competing in the Granite State Regional (Week 1) tournament.

Thank you.

FRC 1519, Mechanical Mayhem

[GDC]

It's unfortunate that this was not asked prior to the competition. The timing for a question like this would be more appropriate early in the build season. Building and bringing two robots that fit the criteria of one robot is not within the intent of the rules.

Rule <R09> expressly states that teams may only enter ONE (1) Robot into the competition.

Rule <R12> describes the basic structure of the robot plus additional mechanisms that are required at inspection. Two robots that share a control system and power supply do not fit this "basic" plus "additional" components since both robots are basic robot structures.

Rule <R114> claims THE (implication, ONE) Robot must be presented with all Mechanisms and that Mechanisms may be removed or reconfigured between matches. A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT.

The described robots are also in violation of the bumper construction rules. Rule <R08> permits one set of bumpers, weighing no more than 15 pounds, and extending no more than 3-1/2 inches from the 28 x 38 x 60 volume limits of the robot. There are two robot chassis and drive systems, with two sets of bumpers. But there is no way that the full set of bumpers (both sets) can be mounted on the (one - either one) robot and satisfy Rule <R08>.

The rules listed above make it clear that teams may enter one robot, not two and trade between the two, into the competition. Futhermore, we ask that you reread Section 8.3. We expect teams to use common sense rather than "lawyering" interpretations and splitting hairs over precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes.