If this is a thing, http://www.vexiqforum.com/forum/vex-…ll-edr-spacers I’m pretty sure I’m not interested in playing here any more. We’ve gotten to the point that we eliminate teams because of cross information and parts. I have to tell you that I have those same parts that is part of a Hexbug kit, and I’m using them,
(Pro tip, VEX IQ never goes on sale, but Hexbug kits get pretty deep discounts at Target, Costco, BestBuy. (50% off of VEX list) I stock team boxes from there.)
Those spacers are part of hexbug kits, which are legal, which should have been allowed)
Help me here, we building STEM engineers / science roboteers here or have we branched into creating “Philadelphia Lawyers”
That would be bad. My team had hard times last year at words for using 24-pitch axle from EDR package (they were sold as 4x24-pitch for $9, while VexIQ only has one in the bundle for $10), but only because the team mentioned it during the inspection. The axles are otherwise indistinguishable. But we were let in and Karthik explicitly mentions this as allowed now (http://www.vexiqforum.com/forum/vex-…ss-listed-part)
Our other team used Hexbug VEX parts (spider legs) in a very creative way and had to justify it (they have had a copy of the spider manual and luckily even the rules page with the rule R6d (as other parts of the rules only mention VEX IQ), but that’s OK and expected (even if little challenging for 3rd graders) by the wording of the rule R6a (“if in doubt, you have to prove the source”).
So if those spacers are in Hexbug VEX kits, they would be legal, but you’d have to prove the source.
Either way, refusing to reinspect the robot when the team intentions were clearly not to gain an unfair advantage (equivalent functionality would be obtained by stacking 228-2500-114 or even using a single 228-2500-170 standoff connector) is quite harsh.
But we weren’t at the event. There might have been other effects at play, like team members showing attitudes and being disrespectful towards inspectors. Not suggesting it happened in this particular case, but I can imagine our 3rd graders, if not prepared to handle the rule R6a, to get upset easily.
PS: I have bigger issue with unqualified inspectors letting clearly illegal robots through. We had an alliance partner with 7 motors that passed the inspection. Telling your alliance their robot is illegal, explaining it and asking them to fix it is a very challenging thing for students. Not doing so is even worse…
I have a team using the spider legs and another is using the legs off the Scarab. I have the assembly manuals in their kits, so that shouldn’t be a problem.
And you are right, we were not there, so we didn’t see the attitude of the roboteers. I was more disheartened by the inspector using a flashlight to probe in the insides of the robot looking for errant spacers. I’m clearly on the wrong end of the spectrum trying to offer up inspiration to elementary students rather than looking at robots like a NASCAR race official trying to determine illegal parts.
Interested to see what Recf or Karthik’s reply looks like. OpticalEncoderDemo.zip (1.2 KB)
Nenik,Thank you very much for your response! Kids didn’t argue with the inspectors, they simply made the changes as they were asked. Can you believe, the inspector flipped the robot and used flash light to look deep into the robot very thoroughly. This was the only robot they had inspected like this with an intention to DQ the team. They have been into VEX IQ robotics last three years from the age 7 and this is the first time they were rejected with a minor reason. I personally felt it is very unfair and injustice to the kids. My request is that untrained inspector should not be the in decision making roles at these events.
I don’t have a problem with a detailed inspection. The attitude seems wrong. It is not like the spacers provide any tactical advantage to the robot.
Inspection at world’s this year was horrible. Our robot was exactly 13" wide. The kids showed this to the inspector using a measuring tape. And yet, they claimed that the robot touched the side of their metal box, so it was illegal.
They also asked the kids to remove a rubber band and measured it. Once it was obvious that it was an official, and Meagan, rubber band, they had the audacity of telling the kids that they had never seen a rubber band stretch this much.
Finally, they told the kids that the America and Californian flag stickers were not allowed and had to be removed.
The rules clearly state that decorations are allowed as long as they do not provide any structural support to the robot.
I was not pleased with the inspectors attitude and presumption of guilt.
Not a fun start to an otherwise great tournament.
It all worked out for them in the end.
Sorry that your team was DQed from the event from what appear to be a minor violation with no strategic advantage.
Inspection is a pain and VEX and the REC Foundation do not help the cause. *The lack of training videos this year have caused so many problems that you can read across the forums for VIQC and VRC this year. *I was at an event recently where the robots started on the wrong side of the field and they wouldn’t fix it because they already ran a few matches. It really threw a few of my teams off.
We have a sizing box made that we use in class for making sure our robots are in size. They had sizing boxes made for Worlds last year and I would love to buy one… But they are not for sale. Why not? If we can standardize inspections across events what harm would come from that? Events are not going to be standardized, but if you can provide a box for even $50 and charge teams an extra dollar or two to come to the event to cover it, who would really lose?
The inspectors and refs also need to be student centered. The first rule is not “the ref is right,” it is that the kids have a good experience. With the complexity of the games part of the responsibility lies on VEX and the REC foundation to make sure that the rules can be understood by the volunteers that the EPs can find.