This Q&A is now read-only
Official Q&A: VEX IQ Robotics Competition 2025-2026: Mix & Match
2930: G4 clarification
I would like to request clarification regarding how <G4> should be applied when evaluating Teams that use publicly available mechanisms (e.g., “meta-bots,” common 180-degree swing arms, etc.) as inspiration.
Specifically:
What level of iteration or modification is required for a mechanism to be considered a “unique design” under <G4>? For example, if a Team cites their source properly and can explain their design process, is modifying elements such as arm length, gear ratio, structure layout, or grip geometry sufficient to demonstrate meaningful iteration?
Would the use of a common swing-arm mechanism automatically violate <G4>, even if the Team documents inspiration and can defend their modifications? Our Head Referee is concerned that these designs may be “above the students’ skill level,” and is considering disallowing all versions of the 180-degree swing mechanism—even those with documented student-driven changes. I would appreciate guidance on whether this interpretation aligns with the intent of <G4>.
Regarding exact or near-exact copies: At what point do small changes (e.g., adjusting grip shape, modifying gears, or changing lengths) become meaningful enough to avoid being considered a direct copy?
Our goal is to apply <G4> consistently and fairly while ensuring students are encouraged to innovate rather than discouraged from using publicly known mechanisms as starting points, as long as they can defend their work.
Thank you for your clarification.
Best regards,
Thanks, Team 1599B, for these questions.
There is a difference between finding inspiration from a design or Robot mechanism and building a direct copy (hole counting) from a video or other reference. 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 other sources 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 evidence needed to prove their iteration through the engineering design process.
To more directly answer your questions:
What level of iteration or modification is required for a mechanism to be considered a “unique design” under G4? Regarding exact or near-exact copies: At what point do small changes (e.g., adjusting grip shape, modifying gears, or changing lengths) become meaningful enough to avoid being considered a direct copy?
Similar mechanisms 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 a popular mechanism may raise questions about whether the mechanism represents the Team's work, and may lead to penalties for a <G4> Violation.
If asked to defend their work, the Team must be able to demonstrate that they created their own version of the Robot or mechanism that inspired them. Because experience and understanding varies between volunteers and events, we cannot provide blanket guidance on the level of iteration or modification that should be requested or required. Event staff must discuss all reported <G4> Violations with their RECF Regional Support Manager, who will provide guidance on a case-by-case as needed.
Would the use of a common swing-arm mechanism automatically violate G4, even if the Team documents inspiration and can defend their modifications?
There is no mechanism that should be considered an "automatic" <G4> Violation if the Team is able to defend their work as their own.