This Q&A is now read-only
Official Q&A: VEX V5 Robotics Competition 2025-2026: Push Back
2850: G4/G5 follow up
This is a followup to https://events.vex.com/V5RC/2025-2026/QA/2834
In part, the GDC's answer includes the following quote, which seems entirely unsatisfying given the potential consequences up to and including removal from the program, where the burden of proof falls on the team to defend themselves.
Neither the game manual nor the GDC provide guidelines for what should be included in a Team’s engineering notebook, should they choose to use one. We recommend that Teams review the related content in the RECF Library, including the pertinent portions of the RECF Guide to Judging.
In response to one scenario that I posted:
A team "hole counts" a mechanism based on YouTube content. The mechanism is made entirely of Vex-branded parts and is identical to the YouTube version.
The GDC's response was:
This would be a clear violation of rule <G4> clause B that could lead to penalties up to and including removal from the program if recognized by or reported to event staff.
If the team had an Engineering Notebook and in that notebook the team describe finding the video, building it, creating various iterations, before concluding that the original version (the copy of the YouTube implementation) is optimal, would that be sufficient to overcom G4.2.i
Using elements of another design as a starting point is acceptable if the Team is capable of demonstrating evidence of iteration, innovation, and/or modification that makes the design uniquely their own. Documentation should clearly demonstrate the idea that was used for inspiration, and how it was changed for the final implementation on the Team’s Robot. It should be clear that this final implementation is not an exact copy of ANY other original design.
Especially given that there are only so many permutations of reasonably combining Vex parts?
Replace "mechanism" from the original question to "drivetrain", where there seem to be a limited number of reasonable drivetrain choices. Are all teams at risk of program removal if their drivetrain is an exact copy of some other popular drivetrain?
Thanks, Team 355U, for this follow-up question.
There is a difference between finding inspiration from a design or Robot mechanism and building a direct copy (hole counting) from a video. Being inspired by a design means learning from others and creating your own version of mechanisms or other elements of a build. Attempts to recreate entire Robot builds from videos can quickly move beyond inspiration.
Student Team members are the only individuals who know their inspiration, learning, and how they worked through the engineering design process to arrive at an independent solution. As such, it is up to the Team to determine the proper level of documentation needed to prove their iteration through the engineering design process.
To more directly answer your questions:
If the team had an Engineering Notebook and in that notebook the team describe finding the video, building it, creating various iterations, before concluding that the original version (the copy of the YouTube implementation) is optimal, would that be sufficient to overcom G4.2.i
Only if the Team could demonstrate that they created their own version of the Robot or mechanism that inspired them. Hole counting is a Violation of rule <G4>, even if Teams try other thing before deciding to copy someone else's work. We'll once again state that the V5RC Game Manual and GDC do not provide guidelines for what Teams should or should not include in their engineering notebooks. That guidance can be found in the RECF Guide to Judging and the notebook judging rubric. If you have additional questions about engineering notebooks, please post them in the Judging Q&A.
Are all teams at risk of program removal if their drivetrain is an exact copy of some other popular drivetrain?
Similar drive trains built independently by different Teams will reflect different choices and utilize different parts and spacing and would not represent <G4> Violations. However, using an "exact copy of some other popular drivetrain" may raise questions about whether the drivetrain represents the Team's work, and may lead to penalties for a <G4> Violation.