RobotEvents.com
Robotics Education & Competition Foundation
Inspirando estudiantes, un robot a la vez.

This Q&A is now read-only

The Official Q and A is now closed. If you want to submit a question for the Worlds Drivers Meeting, please click here. The deadline for question submission is Friday, March 24.

Official Q&A: VRC 2022-2023: Spin Up

Usage Guidelines All Questions

1149: R11 "Additional Functionality"

Jess Zarchi
9-Jul-2022

Hello,

R11

Certain non-VEX fasteners are allowed. Robots may use the following commercially available hardware:

a. #4, #6, #8, M3, M3.5, or M4 screws up to 2.5” (63.5mm) long (nominal) made of steel or stainless steel.

b. Shoulder screws cannot have a shoulder length over 0.20” and a diameter over 0.176”

c. Any commercially available nut, washer, standoff, and / or non-threaded spacer up to 2.5” (63.5mm) long which fits these screws.

R11 red box

The intent of the rule is to allow Teams to purchase their own commodity hardware without introducing additional functionality not found in standard VEX equipment. It is up to inspectors to determine whether the non-VEX hardware has introduced additional functionality or not.

If a key component of a Robot’s design relies upon convincing an inspector that a specialized component is “technically a screw,” it is probably outside of the spirit and intent of this rule.

  1. Because the red box states "VEX equipment", is it a correct interpretation for Head Referees / Inspectors to compare the hardware in question to the entire list of VRC legal parts and not just hardware? Is there a new thought experiment that should be used when determining additional functionality?

  2. Is it ever legal to use different materials or sizes of nut, washer, standoff or non-threaded spacer up to 2.5" long?

  3. Is it ever legal to use #4 or M3 screws that are up to 2.5" long made of steel or stainless steel?

  4. Is it ever legal to use hollow screws that otherwise follow R11-a b and c?

  5. If the answer to #4 answer is no, how should Head Referees / Inspectors determine if the hardware was manufactured by the team?

Thank you for your time!

Robot Rules and Inspection  
Answered by committee
  1. Because the red box states "VEX equipment", is it a correct interpretation for Head Referees / Inspectors to compare the hardware in question to the entire list of VRC legal parts and not just hardware? Is there a new thought experiment that should be used when determining additional functionality?

We are unsure what this question is specifically asking; without further detail, we will have to defer to the other portion of the red box: "If a key component of a Robot’s design relies upon convincing an inspector that a specialized component is “technically a screw,” it is probably outside of the spirit and intent of this rule."

  1. Is it ever legal to use different materials or sizes of nut, washer, standoff or non-threaded spacer up to 2.5" long?

Yes, this is what is stated by R11-c.

  1. Is it ever legal to use #4 or M3 screws that are up to 2.5" long made of steel or stainless steel?

Yes, this is what is stated by R11-a.

  1. Is it ever legal to use hollow screws that otherwise follow R11-a b and c?

By the strictest definitions of R11 and previous Q&A rulings on this subject, no, if purchased off-the-shelf. This minor amount of weight savings would be considered additional functionality, as well as other possible use cases like threading string through it.

  1. If the answer to #4 answer is no, how should Head Referees / Inspectors determine if the hardware was manufactured by the team?

A full explanation of the inspection process is outside of the scope of this Q&A system. This would be handled in the same way as any other rule that references "additional scrutiny during inspection", or "official VEX components", as well as "convincing an inspector that a specialized component is technically a screw".

Unofficial note from the Chairman of the GDC regarding this question, not a part of the official response but hopefully a useful "thought experiment":

If a Team was willing to take the time to drill out every screw used on their Robot, I would be surprised that they found the task of documenting / explaining that effort to be more time consuming or challenging. This is why, if an inspector sees a set of perfectly consistent precision-machined hollow screws, they are probably going to assume the screws were purchased, not hand-made.

Furthermore, I would be equally surprised that the Team found this to be the most productive use of their time, instead of spending it on drive practice, autonomous routines, strategy tools, design iterations, scuf paddles for your controller...

-- Grant