Regarding VURC Q&A 2113

Hello. I am a member of VURC team ATUM. I’m writing this post on behalf of several teams that have concerns regarding the recent Q&A.

This Q&A seems to place unexpected, new restrictions regarding electronics. For our team in particular, it seems that our odometers – using AMT102-V encoders – are now illegal. With a competition approaching, we would have to make significant design and code changes (since we relied both on the slimmer profile and higher precision of the AMT102-Vs). We have used these encoders for nearly four years now and have competed with them through three seasons.

I know of at least five other VURC teams that have expressed that this Q&A negatively affects them (QUEEN, GHOST, WHOOP, RIT, and BLRS), likely more so than us (as it seems LIDAR modules are also affected). There are probably more teams that have been impacted, but aren’t aware of the decision yet. Hopefully, they share their thoughts here.

In short, we are requesting that the VURC Q&A 2113 be reconsidered.

27 Likes

Add BUCKS to the list of negatively affected teams. A very disappointing and strange ruling given the fairly concise language in VUR12.

15 Likes

yeah this q&a is really inconsistent with virtually every ruling regarding electronics in the history of vexu. It seems like a bad move to me to regress on something like that.

17 Likes

Team whoop5 is affected by this as well because the odometry system we have been working on since september is no longer legal.

15 Likes

Add PNTHR to the list of teams affected by this new ruling. Our odometry and pneumatics systems are both completely illegal by this. We had made some custom pneumatic cables for the legacy soleniods. We designed custom boards and ordered them through a third-party manufacturer. Without these cables we can not use our pneumatics at all.

15 Likes

Team Whoop5 will be significantly impacted by this decision. We have dedicated six months to developing a vision odometry system using a Raspberry Pi 5 and a OAK-D Lite, with a team of 10 developers and an investment of over $1,000. It is simply unreasonable to expect us to abandon this project after such a substantial commitment of time, effort, and resources.

Whoop5 is not just a robotics team, we are an educational platform that introduces students with no prior experience to real-world robotics and software development. Making this project work is more than just a technical achievement: it is a cornerstone of our team’s mission to train and inspire the next generation of engineers. Our work embodies the VEX vision that “every student has the opportunity to be inspired by the excitement of hands-on STEM learning and knows the feeling of creating something with technology.” This rule change doesn’t just affect the robot, it affects the 10 student developers who have spent months learning to code, processing real-time data, and refining their skills. Without the ability to implement their work, their efforts will be rendered meaningless, both as a learning experience and as a valuable project to showcase on their resumes for their career. Imagine the disappointment of being told that their hard work, which was meant to be used in competition, is now obsolete. For students who have devoted a quarter of their college life to this project, the loss is immeasurable.

Beyond the technical team, our logistics team made significant sacrifices to secure more than $1,000 in funding for this project. That money could have been allocated toward a full field and element kit, allowing us to host the Aggieland Classics competition better. Instead, we chose to invest in innovation, only to now see that investment potentially wasted due to a single Q&A ruling. The impact extends beyond just our team, it affects the entire Aggie Robotics community that benefits from our outreach and contributions.

From a technological standpoint, the capabilities of the VEX Brain and camera simply cannot support the level of processing required for our vision odometry system. The Raspberry Pi 5 and the Oak-D Lite camera provides the necessary computational power, whereas the VEX camera and Brain are limited by low resolution and low processing power. The OAK-D Lite integrates a 13-megapixel color camera, stereo depth sensors, and an Intel Movidius Myriad X VPU into a single compact package, enabling real-time computer vision without relying entirely on an external processor. This sensor, with its integration of the sensor in its “simplest form” and the coprocessor is now illegal to use on our robot. Without the ability to use our hardware, our project is infeasible, and years of progress in high-level VEX robotics development could be lost.

We urge VEX to reconsider VURC Q&A 2113 and continue supporting Whoop5’s mission of education, outreach, and technological innovation. This ruling does not just limit competition, it stifles the very spirit of STEM learning that VEX aims to promote.

19 Likes

A ruling this widespread and unprecedented should be issued at minimum as part of a manual update and ideally happen between seasons. Having this come out in the middle of the competition season shortly before upcoming tournaments is going to disrupt the design process of many teams. This is a rather disappointing decision from the GDC.

21 Likes

Please add CBU1 to the list of teams that this question affects. We have a team of students who have put hundreds of hours into our custom electronics sensor systems.

When VEX ruled VURC Q&A 2031, I believe they made a mistake. Their ruling applied to sensor systems. The problem with this is that only applies to Fabricated Parts.

is extremely clear that VEX Parts, Fabricated Parts, Springs, Fasteners and Bearings, A Legal Electronics System, Additional Electronics, and Pneumatics are completely different categories. The rules only apply to Fabricated Parts, nothing else (ie, if this applies to additional electronics, why doesn’t it apply to bearings or any of the categories?) Additionally, is very clear that there are “no restriction on sensors and other Additional Electronics that Robots may use for sensing and processing, except as follows.” That means ONLY the “don’t interface with motors” and “use the correct power supply” rules in restrict the design and construction of Additional Electronics. According to a straightforward reading of these rules, we should be allowed to buy any sensor system as long as it functions as a sensor system. We should be allowed to design and manufacture sensor electronics however we want. They do not have to be designed or manufactured by team members (because that rule only applies to Fabricated Parts).

After VURC Q&A 2113 was not answered for months, I asked VURC Q&A 2412 to clear these questions up. I think it comes down to one thing: Are Sensors and Additional Electronics considered Fabricated Parts and thus subject to following the Fabricated Parts rules?

Instead of this ruling being cleared up, they answered VURC G&A 2113 5 months after it was posted by adding new rules in the Q&A. There is no game manual rule referenced, and the answer itself states that it goes further than the game manual. Additionally, many new question arise after the Q&A’s unclear wording.

  • What is a “Circuit Board Assembly?” Does that mean the manufacturing of the PCB by PCBWay is legal, but the external assembly of the components is not?
  • “External Processors” are mentioned, but they are not specified as legal or illegal.
  • At what point is something “ONLY the sensor parts?” Technically, the shaft on an encoder is not the sensor…
  • What is the definition of “more complex systems?” More complex than what?
  • Are lidar arrays still legal?
  • What is a “pure sensor?” Technically, only raw materials that have a unique relationship to voltage, current, or resistance are pure sensors. Everything else is a fabricated assembly of sensors.
  • How are through bore encoders considered electromechanical? Are wire jacks still legal? They are not sensors, and they are not fabricated by the team. Same with electrical adapters?
    Clarifications on these things would be extremely beneficial for all teams, as no one on the team wants to just throw away their hours of hard work to get these systems operational.

VEX, please reconsider both the 2113 and 2031 rulings. In my opinion, the underlying reasoning is wrong in the 2031 ruling and the 2113 ruling did not clear anything up. does not apply to . If it is used for sensing, it should be legal according to .

Also, the 2113 question had been unanswered for 5 months. A massive rule change like this during competitions (especially when the rule change is not even changed in the game manual) really hurts teams who have been working with the old rules for months. Quite a few of us would have to change our robot designs mid competition season, which puts us at a massive disadvantage after spending a ton of resources on trying to improve the competition. If these rulings and precedence are kept, it will disincentivize teams from innovating with the electronics and sensors.

Thank you.

14 Likes

It seems as of today that the stipulations regarding circuit boards has been removed, but the line about “encoder housings that allow for pass-through of shafts” remains and seems to render illegal the encoders that our team and several others use. Again, teams have used these sensors for many years without problem. Additionally, they are not “drop-in” sensors and require specially designed housing nor do they provide any mechanical advantage. We hope this line is either clarified or simply removed.

6 Likes

I’m not part of VURC, but the only way affect change with Q&A rulings is to post a question to the Q&A. As I’m sure you know since you’ve been part of this for a number of years, anything on VexForum isn’t an official ruling…only on the Q&A. There have been some big changes mid-season for all levels of VEX Robotics competitions.

Sometimes its nice to get a little bit of visibility through the community for a big issue like this that simply opening another Q&A would not achieve. For example, you would not have come across this had it been on the Q&A and not on the Vex forum. This is a very important issue to those of us competing in Vex U and we hope you can understand why.

9 Likes

I think that RECF really dropped the ball on this one, like normally upsetting updates happen, but the way this one happened was just terrible. First off This ruling belongs in the game manual not the Q&A. Secondly this belongs in a between season update, mid season is for ruling questions and game based things, not bot based. Finally when we see such a large number of teams all so negatively affected my a change like this it’s upsetting. Yeah it happens but normally theirs a up side or a good reason, not so much this time.

3 Likes