In R1, it is stated that subsystem 1 is the mobile robotic base. In R11, it is stated that the overall wattage of subsystem 1 cannot be higher than 55 watts, and that it cannot be used to power any mechanisms in any other subsystem. That means that PTO systems cannot be used. My question is, it doesn’t seem to mention the reverse of that. There is no mention of the legality of a motor in another subsystem using a gear shift to use their motors to power subsystem 1. It is only said that subsystem one cannot provide power to other subsystems and that the motors in subsystem 1 cannot be over 55 watts. As such, a mechanism on another subsystem that can be used to power the drive train is perfectly legal according to those definitions right? What does everybody think?
Here are the definitions of both rules I mentioned if anybody is curious.
R1:
One Robot per Team. Each Team can only bring one Robot to a given event in the VEX V5 Robotics
Competition. Though it is expected that Teams will make changes to their Robot at the competition, a
Team is limited to only one Robot at a given event, and a given Robot may only be used by one Team. A VEX
Robot, for the purposes of the VEX V5 Robotics Competition, has the following subsystems:
● Subsystem 1: Mobile robotic base including wheels, tracks, legs, or any other mechanism that allows the
Robot to navigate the majority of the flat playing Field surface. For a stationary Robot, the robotic base
without wheels would be considered Subsystem 1.
● Subsystem 2: Power and control system that includes a legal VEX battery, a legal VEX control system,
and associated motors for the mobile robotic base.
● Subsystem 3: Additional mechanisms (and associated motors) that allow manipulation of Scoring
Objects and interactions with Field Elements and other Robots.
Given the above definitions, a minimum Robot for use in any VEX V5 Robotics Competition event (including
Robot Skills Matches) must consist of subsystems 1 and 2 above. Thus, if you swap out an entire subsystem 1 or 2, you have created a second Robot and are in Violation this rule.
a. Teams may not compete with one Robot while a second is being modified or assembled at a
competition.
b. Teams may not have an assembled second Robot on hand at a competition that is used to repair or
swap parts with the first Robot.
c. Teams may not switch back and forth between multiple Robots during a competition. This includes
using different Robots for Robot Skills Matches, Qualification Matches, and/or Elimination Matches.
d. Multiple Teams may not use the same Robot. Once a Robot has competed under a given Team number
at an event, it is “their” Robot; no other Team may EVER compete with it.
R11:
Subsystem 1 (see ) has a motor limit. Robots may use any combination of VEX V5 Smart Motors
(11W) (276-4840) and V5 Smart Motors (5.5W) (276-4842) in Subsystem 1, within the following criteria:
a. The combined power of all motors in Subsystem 1 must not exceed 55W.
b. Motors that are used in Subsystem 1 cannot provide power to any mechanism that is not a part of Sub-
system 1
i. Motors in Subsystem 1 cannot be toggled, engaged, or configured such that they are capable or
providing power to any part of the Robot that is not a part of Subsystem 1. This includes, but is not
limited, to power-takeoff mechanisms and/or differential power to other mechanisms/subsystems.
c. Teams may be required to demonstrate what each motor is capable of powering on their Robot during inspection in order to satisfy this requirement.
There is actually an even bigger loophole. According to R1 “associated motors for the mobile robotic base” are considered part of Subsystem 2 not Subsystem 1. Because of this no motors are part of Subsystem 1 so there are no actual restrictions on drivetrain PTOs or drivetrain motors.
Actually, rule states that motors used in Subsystem 1 cannot provide power to any mechanism that is not part of Subsystem 1. Because your proposed motor is used to power the drivetrain (Subsystem 1), it is considered a motor “used in Subsystem 1” and is therefore prohibited from powering mechanisms in any other subsystem, regardless of which way the gear shift is oriented. Under this rule, any motor providing power to the base is restricted to only powering the base.
I thought about this at 1:30am as I was reading the GM in bed, I believe that unfortunately the rule works both ways however this feels like a thing which will be clarified in a Q and A once they open, regretably it feels like considering the way the GM is written, as in trying to stop every loophole, that it won’t be allowed, however one can only hope!
I meant that the motor would primarily be used to first power a mechanism in another subsystem. Since subsystem 1 is the mobile base, any motors that are not used in the mobile base are not part of subsystem 1. However I think your interpretation is also valid when considering what “in” means in this context. While it could be talking about any motors which are physically in that part of subsystem 1, if it would refer to any motor that can be used to power subsystem 1 then you would be right. Currently I’m interpreting it to mean a motor that is in the physical subsystem 1. I was thinking more something for example like a motor used in subsystem 3 that can provide power to subsystem 1, however I think your answer is logically and is the most likely intended interpretation. I was just thinking if this was a possible loophole.
@ART_1010 Unfortunately, G3 exists. If your mechanism would “…allow the
Robot to navigate the majority of the flat playing Field surface…” then it is a part of Subsystem 1 and would count toward the 55 watt limit, but I like where your brain is at.
@74100dEli It is not stated that a motor cannot be a part of Subsystem 1 and Subsystem 2 as “…associated motors for the mobile robotic base…” would most definitely qualify as a part of Subsystem 2 but it would also qualify as Subsystem 1 under its definition of any mechanism that allows the Robot to navigate the playing field.
Uhh, I would look at the defintions again if I were you, especially the previous year’s game manual. Also, Idk if anyone else has said this, but you have been posting alot of incorrect information and many posts kinda disregarding teams concerns. People are passionate about Vex, and when they see thing happening to change what they love, they will be frustrated. In my personal opinon, alot of what you said made it worse (I mean absoluetly no offense to you, and I know you are just trying to help)
Yeah, G3 probably would limit that. However I wonder since the official definitions of Subsystem 1 only mention the things that allow it to move like wheels, treads, or legs, if the second loophole would still be legal. Mechanism could be referring to the motors of course, but with how it was phrased earlier we should assume it’s talking about the wheels or treads and such things that we use, not including motors. Since motors aren’t included in subsystem 1’s definition I wonder if the second loophole would still be legal?
I disagree with your thoughts on subsystem 1 and 2. Primarily because subsystem 3 does define mechanisms and motors as different. Subsystem 2 also refers to the motors on the drivebase explicitly, while subsystem 1 doesn’t mention any motors, only mechanisms (which are independent from motors).
I’m not saying that this is a legal loophole, that will be usable forever and ever, but I am saying the wording is incredibly poor for the subsystems as of now (which is why, arguably, 55w limit on subsystem 1 literally does nothing because subsystem 1 technically doesn’t have any motors on it, which technically means 66w and 88w drives are still legal). I personally think vex should rewrite all of the subsystem definitions. Primarily so they can be more clear on their intent, but also because they’re just not worded super well. Your interpretation and mine are both potentially correct because of this wording, which is really funny.
First, I want to say that I in no way am trying to be disrespectful or argumentative and I want to keep this discussion as respectful as possible
I would like to again prefix with G3 it is the main rule that governs all poor wording in my opinion. I would then like to say that I do agree with you on the fact that the rule is poorly written and will most likely be revised. The point that I will try to make here is that it is not written bad enough that it undoes drivetrain wattage limit
If I understand you correctly, your saying that the definition of Subsystem 1 does not include motors so there can be no way to restrict the amount of wattage it uses, because it doesn’t use any at all (by definition). This is a totally legit argument and at first I thought I was most definitely wrong.
However, I do believe if we take into account G3 the loophole is immediately closed, and here’s why: Subsystem 1 is the Mobile robotic base including wheels, tracks, legs, or any other mechanism that allows the Robot to navigate the majority of the flat playing Field surface… If I understand you correctly, your argument relies on motors not being a/part of a mechanism. So, the question becomes are motors a/part of a mechanism, and would reason that they are. The term mechanism is (correct me if I’m wrong) never defined in the game manual so, we should use the actual definition of the word which is this: A mechanism is a system of moving parts, a process, or a technique that performs a specific function or produces a particular effect. If you use the motor to power a mechanism to move it would generally be considered part of the mechanism
So, I would argue to say that in the definition of Subsystem 1 it would include the motors in the “mechanism” term.
I do agree that G3 closes this loophole and I mainly suggested it as a joke. However, I disagree that motors for the drive are a part of Subsystem 1 as it is explicitly stated that they are part of Subsystem 2 and it is not stated that they are part of Subsystem 1. However, G3 closes this loophole because the obvious intent of this rule is to limit the motors that power Subsystem 1 even if they are technically not part of it.
I think that’s valid. I still do think that my interpretation is valid, but I see where you’re coming from.
I’m also using the fact that subsystem 3 does explicitly define mechanism and motors for those mechanisms as different, which does imply (to me of course) that, at least for these definitions, that mechanisms and motors are different (I mean, if they’re the same, why separate them?). I do agree that G3 would, probably anyways, close this loophole. I just like how funny the wording is lol.
Hopefully they rewrite the rule/definitions. Possibly both, to assure clarity. Although I will say, R11 and R1 are probably the least of my issues with this game manual but that’s for a different thread.