Interesting, I never saw that ruling and quick search of Official Turning Point Q&A did not yield any results. Either new Q&A portal is not working or I don’t know the right keywords to look up clarifications for R7.c
However, I don’t believe rules that are not realistically enforceable make any sense.
If a hypothetical inspector, who is expert in material science, hardware, software, and everything vex, could take your robot apart, test every part and every bit of hardware and software, would this even be detectable? What would be the positive effect of enforcing the rule that screws on the robot that are under 2" legal length limit, were never originally sold in the 2.5" length?
I would want to reward students for being resourceful and fully documenting their build process, rather than create an environment where not being truthful has any benefits.
Forget what season it was but some time ago. Where you can gain an advantage here is obtaining a longer non-threaded round part which of course becomes a much better pivot or shaft than 1/8" square or #8 threaded screw. It’s no different than only VEX cable ties (and those of the same dimension) being permitted and teams using whatever they buy locally.
Ask an official Q&A about >2" screws being cut down to 2". I would bet the answer is not permitted because it was never a 2" long COTS part to start with.
In their value collection, MSCDirect sells 2" screws for as low as $26/100 but none of those have similarly long non-threaded section. Apparently, you have to pay premium for the rarely used parts.
However, if I expand my search to 2.5" screws, I could find a screw in the value collection with non-threaded section similar to the premium screw but at an affordable price of $26/100: https://www.mscdirect.com/product/details/85326924
If I cut that screw to 2" legal length limit, it will be functionally identical to the brand name screw, but at about half the price.
My understanding of RECF/VRC mission is that its goals include making the program affordable and accessible to the wide student audience to maximize the outreach of the STEM education, and also to provide fair and level competition environment for all kids.
It is important that everybody plays by the same rules, but wouldn’t it make sense to write and interpret the rules in a way that makes more resources accessible to more teams and not only to those who could afford to pay premium prices for the exquisite COTS hardware?
Ah, well that’s another topic. Who’s using titanium screws? VRC rules aren’t complex and long winded for a reason.
My own viewpoint is that once you’re pushing the rules to this point a team should be looking at more open materials competitions like FRC and FTC. VRC is constrained and relatively simple in comparison. It fills a niche and being constrained is actually quite a fun part of the competition.
Yes, titanium screws could get very expensive, and I am glad VRC is not competitive to the point when people would start buying them. Solid game strategy and planning for plenty of driving practice on a good enough hardware would always beat even the most loaded robot finished in the last minute.
@wdr_mentor, I am 100% in agreement with you that constrained environment could both: provide even playing field for teams with access to various levels of resources, and spark creativity to search for the new solutions within the limited set of available parts.
For each aspect of the game you need to hit a sweet spot (or range). If you constrain it too much - people will struggle to do basic tasks. And if you make it too easy - people will get lazy and throw unlimited resources onto the problem, instead of learning how it works and consider balanced alternatives.
I was somewhat disappointed when, with the introduction of V5, they let VEXU teams use unlimited number of motors. Just when the students are mature enough to understand more advanced concepts and will have access to precision CNC equipment, they removed one of the major incentives to learn deeper and try harder.
For example, during ITZ season, one of our students was putting a lot of effort into building fully automatic differential transmission. It could have been done if we had just a few more weeks before the Worlds…
Long story short - he graduated and, after it was announced that VEXU had no motor limits for V5, any plans to keep working on the transmission had evaporated in an instant. This is the latest prototype that was made (original post here):
I could only imagine how much more it could have been improved with the access to VEXU legal materials, good CNC equipment, and a lot of motivation. Plus, all the educational benefits of trying to learn the theory behind designing custom gears, CNC machining techniques, etc…
So, I got pretty excited when I read this post:
I wish it had been better communicated to VEXU teams in the beginning of the last season. It adds a major incentive to think harder about game strategy and robot design, instead of just mindlessly adding extra motors regardless of their relative contribution to the final score.
Few days after that “revelation” was discussed on the unofficial VEX Discord server, I noticed increased traffic to several of my transmissionprototype videos, and a few people had inquired about them over DM.
It is a well known “secret” among the veteran VRC teams that it is best to use single bearing screw joints when building 4B, 6B or DR4B/6B lifts.
With them you can achieve minimum slop, which translates into more stable lift that could go higher with more precision and less wobble.
When assembled correctly nylock nut is tightened almost all the way, but not fully such that you could still rotate the white spacer with your fingers.
To reduce slop and increase precision further you can use longer (2") screws. Below is a picture of the 2" screw tower connection for DR4B:
However, you have to be careful and need to regularly check those screws, because if they get bent you will end up with more friction losses than benefits.
Similarly, to reduce wobble you could increase the width of the arm/gear assembly in the mid-section. Here,1.5" screws hold an extra bearing on 3/8" nylon spacers (note that spacers are slightly rounded with a grinder wheel to fit the shape of the newer 60T gears):
On the other side of the gear keps nuts are used for better overall stability:
Washers are added under and over the keps nuts to get the perfect distance where c-channel is almost touching the gear.
This fits perfectly with 2" screw that acts both as a gear axle and rigidly connects both sides of the DR4B mid-section. Same as with the tower connection you need to tighten the nuts such that there is no visible slop, but not too tight, to avoid any unnecessary friction. After the final assembly you can use a small ziptie to add some white lithium grease lubricant under the bearings and onto the gears.
As you can see on the side view there is no need for any additional connecting hardware. Four 2" screws used as axles also connect the sides of the mid-section.
You can assemble top and bottom parts of the DR4B separately and then connect them at mid-section to get the optimal alignment between the gears.
<R11>… 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.
So I may need to clarify what qualifies as a additional functionality. the GDC has confirmed that any commercially available bolt can be used, including set screws and screws with captive washers, …
… but not threaded rods or eye bolts. However this is spread across the last 5 years worth of Q&A.
While I love this design, I am left to ask if the thread free part of your screws introduces functionality not found in standard vex hardware. If the functionality is limited to “gear spins on it” then is a better spin additional functionality, or just superior functionality. I think this should be dropped into an official Q&A, because I would love to know for sure with this added clarification.
How would you differentiate, as an inspector, between a bolt manufactured with a longer unthreaded section, and a fully threaded bolt with the threads carefully filed off to the desired location?
I would recommend more clarification from the GDC. However, the rules allow for larger bolts, like , which could be machined down to the appropriate size, increasing the cost and exclusivity, which is counter to what I believe the GDC has in mind for this rule.
Theoretically a student could chuck some high strength shaft on my metal lathe and turn most any fastener up to 12" long and 1/4" diameter. I’d have the students take pictures to prove the material came from legal VEX parts.
How good is the high strength shaft material for bolts? Vex lists the material type as 1018 steel, but I am not very familiar with the various types of steel
1018 is a pretty typical low carbon steel for non-heat treated fasteners and stuff. The “10” means plain carbon (no alloy) and the “18” means 0.18% carbon.
Congratulations on creating the transition system for the gear set.
Would you like to know more details about this construction, do you have images with more details of the construction or some 3D drawing that could be shared?
This looks very solid, however, I have a few questions about it. Is there any reason why you put a gear on the bottom bar, and is there a benefit to not stacking the two mid-gears? Also, wouldn’t it be sturdier to sandwich the bars connected to the tower rather than attach them on one side?
I’ve seen people using partially threaded screws in VRC for years. And that would be perfectly consistent with the original wording of <R7c> which became <R11> this season:
<R11> Certain non-VEX screws, nuts, and washers are allowed. Robots may use any commercially available #4, #6, #8, M3, M3.5, or M4 screw up to 2” (50.8mm) long (nominal), and any commercially available nut, washer, and/or spacer (up to 2” / 50.8mm long) to fit these screws.
The most relevant official Q&A that makes such screws legal is this post from May 2013:
I would love to, but RECF & GDC made it especially hard for people to ask questions in the new Q&A format - I will not be able to do this until the fall in the earliest. They are likely to miss a bunch of useful questions that could help them make corrections and clarifications to the game manual early in the season.
Also, I just realized that you cannot search Q&A from multiple seasons with the new interface. Forum based Q&A format worked so much better in so many different ways.
We found that you can polish screws with a buffing wheel to smooth out the sharp edges. It takes off only a few thousands of an inch, retaining all functionality of the thread.
On the picture below, the middle section of the top screw was buffed and if you look closely you can see round thread profiles compared to sharp triangular shapes on the edges or unmodified bottom screw:
If you run lift gears under light loads, you can hardly notice any difference from the the partially threaded screws. Starstruck was the only season where we saw loads on the screw joints large enough to damage the plastic bearings. But that would take several competitions before you would need to replace the shoulder bearings.
Partially threaded screws would be great to have if we could, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if we couldn’t. Although, it saves a lot of work that needs to go into uniformly polishing each screw.
I think that if a piece of hardware that was ruled legal in the previous seasons could be easily bought in most of the local hardware stores at the very affordable price, then there is no good reason for GDC to suddenly make it illegal.
You could build most designs without partially threaded screws, but I found over the years, that having two (regular and smooth) screws on the palm of my hand is a great conversation starter to talk to students about axle friction and how it impacts the operation of their robot. It is a great visual aid for the teaching, if nothing else.
The gear on the bottom bar is there to make structure more stable and have symmetrical (pure torque) load on the pinion 12T metal gear driven by the motor. You can even get away without supporting its axle on the other end (maybe).
I am not sure what you mean by stacking.
Finally, as far as I understand, sandwiching the bars is not necessary with the long screws and will only make construction of the mid-section more complicated.
This particular prototype was designed to provide maximum stability with the minimum number of parts. In theory it could operate one sided for small end loads, but if you want to carry several cubes at once for Tower Takeover game that is, obviously, not recommended. You got to build both sides.
I mean putting the top gear directly over the bottom gear. I have never seen a team mount the top gear slightly forward so I was just wondering if it provided any benefits.
Well, I’m sure it allows for a tighter and more consistent meshing of gears, preventing (or trying to prevent) slipping.
As a team with a box of stripped gears(from before I found other solutions to increase build stability and quality), I’d appreciate that.
A standard DR4B has the vertical motion of the top most linkage and the bottom most linkage in a vertical line. That means you need to have them move past each other. With the offset, this problem is solved, as the top most linkage is now horizontally in front of the main towers, which frees up space to build your flip down manipulator and makes it easier to have your axles and bolts move past each other without hitting while moving up or down.
VRC rules aren’t complex and long winded for a reason.
