Is this even legal to do?

While we were at our compitition, we saw a robot with two brains and 2 battery packs on their robot using one as a weight? Is this even legal? Photo below

For anyone who was also following my other post about my smoking motors, just to let you know the problem is fully fixed now and we also got teamwork champion and design award thanks to yall.

6 Likes

This is not legal per R11, which specifies that robots are limited to 1 robot brain.

2 Likes

It is arguably also covered by R1, insofar as teams can only have one of subsystem two (including max. one brain/IQ control system).

@Vex2024, did robot inspection take place at this event?

That said, the inspection checklist (https://recf.org/documents/2023/05/robot-inspection-checklist-viqrc-full-volume.pdf/) does not make it immediately obvious that a robot can only have one brain. If there is an inspector without much knowledge of the rules themselves beyond the checklist (perhaps a parent) then it could have easily slipped past. It is clearer, however, that the robot can only have one battery pack.

Congratulations, by the way!

3 Likes

Im pretty sure this is illeagal.

Yes there was robot inspection at our compitition but inspection was done rather fast because you didn’t need to sign anything only tell them your first and last name and due to this, inspection took littery less than a minute. Idk how they passed inspection but should I call them out?

They won the judges award that compitition for the unique approach on this 2 brain battery pack system

This sounds more like check-in then any substantial inspection. What is being inspected from your first and last name? It does not seem that R3 (robots must pass inspection) has been followed.

By no means should a team have won an award for a robot that was illegal. It is not even a robot according to the manual’s definition (“Robot – A machine that has passed inspection…”).

It would be worth sharing your experience with your region’s RECF Team Engagement Manager (found here: Robot Events). I think it’s less important to overturn the results of an event in the past, but getting in touch would help to ensure that future events are of a higher standard.

4 Likes

That’s admittedly quite appalling. I mean, if that got reported to RECF (very possible it already has), I wouldn’t be surprised if that would get that event/event partner in some very big trouble. Inspection is something that VEX/RECF takes very seriously iirc, soooo.

But just to clarify, if the event is choosing to (effectively) not inspect the robots, reporting the illegal robot isn’t likely to do much, and the RECF would be the people to contact at that point.

If you want to try that, talk to your Coach, he/she will know who the RECF person to contact is (and yes, the Coach is the one who should be emailing with RECF in this case).

2 Likes

This is a serious allegation, and you should ask you mentor/coach to contact your RECF EEM (event engagement manager) to investigate. Your allegation places both the EP and the Head Referee in violation of the RECF standards.

6 Likes

This may a gray area - the second brain is not a functional element but purely used as weight. As you can see no wires are connected nor it seems powered up. So I’m not sure it violates a rule……

1 Like

If it’s used as weight, it is functional.

7 Likes

The function is weight. There is no grey area here, the team is in violation of R11 and should not have passed inspection.

3 Likes

This is not gray at all, it is clearly against <R11> and <R13>.

3 Likes

Did you reach this conclusion even after reading the first few posts where specific rules from the manual were referenced?

2 Likes

It is a proper inspection with the inspection stands to clarify that the robots fit. They also made you prove that you had 6 motors or less by pointing them out to them however it was volunteer adults rather than coaches doing inspection.

Usually in our region “Connecticut” the people who run inspection stands are former VEX IQ Competetors who have competed for more than 2 years. They get soo strict at some times that at the first event of the year they deemed our robot too wide even though we showed them with our tape measure that it is exactly 11 inches. They then told us because our axle-pins were sticking out just a tad we are talking like one mm per side they told us we had to shrink the width of the robot.
But we never had inspection people pass something this stupid.
I will tell my coach because she is a ref at worlds and the head ref for states and tell you what she says.

2 Likes

Btw the team also qualified for states that compitition because they reached our region’s state qualifying criteria of 45pts in skills with this robot. Should we also call out on this?

1 Like

90% sure this violates the rule of only 1 VEXIQ brain and 1 VEXIQ battery on the robot. the only argument for it could be that its non-functional, but its quite interesting if It passed inspection, seeing as I’m fairly certain that its part of the inspection checklist that a robot only has 1 battery place and one brain

Def ask them about that
I think I might be in the same region as you so I actually have no idea how they let that slide because as far as I’m aware they run more of an inspection that just your name
If they got to states with that, you really need to ask about that cuz I’m 98% sure that’s illegal

Ah but see, the function is the weight! So even that argument is invalid.

@Vex2024 I will be veeeery interested to see what she says!

Clear Violations. People passing this through inspection prob didn’t know anything abt Vex IQ for all we know.

2 Likes

Sorry I meant non-functional as a brain