Teamwork maxed out video

Two dump bots maxing the field in no time.

This year will be a strategic balance between trusting you have a partner that can max their half of the field vs being able to pass under the bar to help a partner that can not max their half the field.

I think world finals will have 2 of these bots and will come down to a stop time for the win.

However it may be difficult to make the event final seeded highly if you can’t help out weaker partners on the other half of the field.

(I wonder if post dump the bot can be considered disabled and do a field reset on the other half of the field, probably worth a Q&A to specifically prevent that from being abused)


Congrats teams!!!

Now just for this to happen in skills… that’s the real challenge.

Welp see you all at worlds with this design i guess lol


Probably not, as the end of G18 clarifies:
This rule is intended so Teams can fix damaged Robots or help get their Robots “out of trouble.” It is not
intended for Teams to use as part of a strategy to gain an advantage during a Match. If a Head Referee
determines that a Team is strategically exploiting this rule, they may be Disqualified from said Match.


These bots are probably out of size as they rotate up. To check the 19" height, you would roll the bot on the field over its front bumper and make sure it never goes over 19". This design is probably possible, but as it is it probably won’t pass inspection.


So, to make sure it is complying with length and height, the hypotenuse of the bot has to be <= 19".
sqrt(12^2 + 14^2) = 18.44, so a length of 14 and a height of 12 would almost max it out. You could do a little bot more by shortening your wheelbase, but the basket in the back of the bot seems to need to go from the floor where it intakes to the top where it dumps from.

I put up a Q&A’s about this bot in particular and the sizing rules. It seems like teams will assume that the sizing box rotates with the bot… Which is hasn’t done in previous games. Even if it did, the arm that presses against the lower bar would then make it out of size.

We’ll see what they say!


Here’s another shot from the same person. Assuming it’s the same bot. I drew a rough 19" length line on the field. Seems like it’s over by 3-4"



My read on G5 is that the size box absolutely can rotate with the robot. I would test this by having the wheels flat on the ground and running the crane through it’s allowable motion. If the moving crane (& rest of the robot) doesn’t violate the 11x19x19 rectangular prism, then the robot will be legal.


This is how I read it, too. There is nothing in the game manual that says the size box must remain parallel to the floor. The unique wording of a prism of size tells us this is a new concept for this year. Additionally, the “blue box clarification” that says there is absolutely NO 19" ceiling makes no sense if the sizing were with respect to the floor.



Horizontal and vertical aren’t defined in the rules, so the dictionary definitions are:

  • horizontal - parallel to the plane of the horizon; at right angles to the vertical.
  • vertical - at right angles to a horizontal plane; in a direction, or having an alignment, such that the top is directly above the bottom.

Because they said horizontal and vertical, I think that the sizing box remaining perpendicular to the field is what they intended.

But, we’ll see when they answer on the Q&A… They may also get frisky with the 8/31 manual update.


So as of right now, it’s not worth making a high hang and dump bot (using that mechanism, I don’t know any other successful ones that take less space) because of the chance of it not passing inspection?

It’s July. Build whatever you want and have fun! :slight_smile:


You are correct for driving skills, that is prohibited, but for programming it would be perfectly legal.

The key for IQ is to give teams the benefit of the doubt. A robot that rotated on the ground such that is broke the sizing box and then came back in size and continued on would be scrutinized, but I agree that would not be the case for a robot that rotated like this during the climb. I would expect any Q&A to say the box rotates with the base during the climb.

1 Like

My read on the G5 blue box was not that the vertical limit could rotate, but rather that the 19" measurement does not necessarily start at the ground:

  • If the robot is touching the ground, then no part of the robot can be more than 19" above the ground.
  • But if the robot is hanging (and therefore some distance above the ground), then the highest part of the robot could be more than 19" above the ground, as long as the vertical distance from the robot’s lowest point to its highest point is no more than 19". For example, if the lowest point of the robot is 2" off the ground, then the highest point can be up to 21" above the ground.

I think it’s pretty clear based on G3 that “vertical” means “perpendicular to the ground”. If the 19" vertical measurement rotates so that it’s no longer perpendicular to the ground, then it’s no longer a vertical measurement.

Tough to say without taking a measuring tape to it IRL, but it seems totally plausible to me that the robots in that video stay within the 19" vertical limit – that is, for every inch they lift off the ground, they lift no more than 1" above the 19" height indicator.


The question brought by @sankeydd was on the 19” length of the robot. I think we all agree the height here is a non-issue.

1 Like

Whoops, so it was – I should have read further back in the thread before posting. Thanks for clarifying.

In any case, I think the same argument applies to the horizontal measurements as well – “horizontal” and “vertical” are terms that only make sense as defined relative to the field, not relative to the robot. If the 19" horizontal measurement rotates so that it’s not parallel to the ground, then it’s not a horizontal measurement any more.

What’s problematic here is the wording of G5. Although the terms “Horizontal” and “Vertical” are used in subpoints a and b, the rule goes on and mentions the 11” x 19” x 19” (279.4mm x 482.6mm x 482.6mm) rectangular prism, but does not define any of the dimensions in the “rectangular prism” description as horizontal or vertical, nor discuss orientation of the prism. In fact, looking through the past six game manuals, this year is the first time the “rectangular prism” concept has been introduced in the game manual, leading to the possibility that the introduction of the rectangular prism to regulate size during hanging may have been to simplify sizing the robot during the complex translation/rotation that occurs during hanging (and maybe swinging a bit), by offering the concept that a referee could take the robot in the “hanging” configuration, set it on it’s wheels and measure it to see if it’s within the “rectangular prism” size limits. Still waiting on the Q&A…


There is some precedent for the “rotating prism,” Bank Shot. When the bots drive up the ramp there were not sized with respect to the floor while on the ramp.

There is also precedent for no rotation, in Turning Point. There had to be an exception noted in the rules for the robot to climb up the platform.

Having the T’s on the field would make it easy for the students to roll the robot on the field through the motion while the referee / inspector makes sure it never breaks the 19" limit.

I’m curious about the height as well, but it’s difficult to get a good feel for it with the video. You have to find certain frames of the video to try and get a good feel for whatever you can. Once the bot leaves the field, you don’t have really good points of reference.


I am reasonably confident that any bot that can be measured throughout it’s range of motion while on it’s wheels during inspection and not violate the ‘rectangular prism’ will be ruled legal.

1 Like

There is also president for fixing a “maxed” part of the game. When teams maxed out Change Up Driver Skills in less than a month, they changed it. While it’s awesome that teams are able to do this, it does have a bit of a chilling effect on the community when the game is “solved” so early in the process.

If you’re not familiar with VEX IQ, it’s pretty easy to build. (The ringmaster robots were the one big exception to this.) For experienced IQ teams, I think this would be about 15 hours of build time.


So knowing that the field can indeed be maxed out, we get on to the question, how will they upgrade the game to make it more complex?

1 Like