Kysymykset ja vastaukset

https://events.vex.com/VAIC-HS/2020-2021/QA/675

The Jetson cooling fan included in the VAIC kit is an explicitly permissible exception to this rule for VAIC Robots. Teams may not modify or replace this fan (or any electronics in the VAIC kit unless otherwise specifically noted).

VUR5 and AIR 5 both states:

<AIR5> There is no restriction on the number of V5 Smart Motors that Robots may use. No other motors, servos, or actuators are permitted, including those sold by VEX (e.g. the 2-Wire 393 Motor).

<VUR5> There is no restriction on the number of V5 Smart Motors that Robots may use. No other motors, servos, or actuators are permitted, including those sold by VEX (e.g. the 2-Wire 393 Motor).

Is the same fan illegal to use in VEX U? If it is, does this mean that any teams competing in both VAIC and VEX U would need to remove the fan prior to VEX U competition?

In this previous ruling, it was determined that <VUR5> takes priority over <VUR6>:

https://events.vex.com/VEXU/2020-2021/QA/674

However, this is contradictory to every other instance of past rulings regarding <VUR6> and the wording of <VUR6> in the game manual.

⠀

For example, consider a typical custom sensor such as the pixy camera:

https://www.robotshop.com/en/charmed-labs-pixy-2-cmucam5-image-sensor.html

This sensor violates <R6>, <R7>, <R8>, <R10>, <R12>, <R20>, <R22>, as well as <VUR3> and <VUR8>.

VUR3 restricts the materials allowed, but this sensor violates the allowed materials.

VUR8 restricts the screw sizes allowed, but this sensor may have smaller screws than the allowed limit.

As another example, considerer a vex IQ sensor: https://www.vexrobotics.com/228-3014.html

This sensor would violate <R6>, <R7>, <R8>, <R10>, <R12>, <R20>, <R22>, as well as <VUR3> and <VUR2b>.

<VUR2b> restricts teams from using any vex IQ electronics, which would include this sensor.

⠀

Because <VUR6> specifically states "There is no restriction on sensors and other additional electronics that Robots may use for sensing and processing" it has been understood by most VexU teams that <VUR6> takes priority over all the other rules in the game manual. Logically this would also mean <VUR6> would take priority over <VUR5>.

⠀

Several other Q/As over the years have verified this as correct as the wording on <VUR6> has not significantly changed since these rulings:

https://www.vexforum.com/t/answered-vexu-speakers-as-part-of-custom-sensor/42312

https://www.vexforum.com/t/answered-vex-u-old-college-q-a-updates/23810

https://www.vexforum.com/t/answered-custom-sensor-housing/19582/2

These three Q/As verify that <VUR6> would take priority over <VUR3> and <VUR8> as well as all the regular game manual rules mentioned above.

Furthermore, the following Q/A shows that <VUR6> would also take priority over <VUR5>:

https://www.vexforum.com/t/answered-vex-u-non-vex-servo-motors-for-a-custom-sensor/35538

This allowed external non vex motors used solely for manipulating custom sensors.

If this were the case, it would agree with the wording of <VUR6>. There are numerous sensors and processing boards that rely on motors to operate.

For example, many full field lidar systems such as:

https://www.robotshop.com/en/rplidar-a1m8-360-degree-laser-scanner-development-kit.html

rely on an integrated motor to spin the lidar enabling it to map the field. VexU teams have legally used similar lidar systems in the past and may plan to do so again this season.

Another example would be the Nvidia Jetson Xavier NX listed below:

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/autonomous-machines/embedded-systems/jetson-xavier-nx/

This processing board has a built-in fan on its heatsink that is critical to its function as a processing unit.

A third example is the pixy tilt and pan kit: https://pixycam.com/pixy2-pan-tilt-kit/ (ruled legal in the above Q/A linked).

Without these integrated motors, none of these sensors or processing units could function as intended.

⠀

Therefore, which rules, if any, restrict the "no restriction" clause of <VUR6>?

Furthermore, if <VUR5> does not apply to <VUR6>, then was the previous ruling in QA#674 an error?

If <VUR5> is applicable, are 360-degree Lidar sensors and the Nvidia Jetson processing boards also illegal? If all VexU appendix rules also apply to <VUR6>, then does that mean that there are no legal VexU custom sensors?

<VUR5>"There is no restriction on the number of V5 Smart Motors that Robots may use. No other motors, servos, or actuators are permitted, including those sold by VEX." <VUR6>"There is no restriction on sensors and other additional electronics that are used for sensing and processing, except as follows: a. Sensors and electronics MUST be connected to the V5 Robot Brain via any of the externally accessible ports. b. Sensors and electronics CANNOT directly electrically interface with the VEX motors or solenoids. c. The additional sensors and electronics may only receive power from any of the following: i. Directly from the V5 Robot Brain via any externally accessible port. ii. From an additional VEX 7.2V Robot Battery or from a VEX 9.6V Transmitter Battery."

With these rules in mind, would a CPU cooling fan be legal in VEX U? The fan motor, which is not used for any physical robot mechanism actuation, would be attached to and powered off of a single board computer. The computer would be connected to and receive power from the V5 Robot Brain via an externally accessible port.

<VUR5> VUR5 States that Resin 3D printing is prohibited because it can be used in the context of casting.

Would SLA 3D Printing be allowed as the part is made in an additive way rather than by casting?

A similar question was asked last year in Q&A 1015, but the portion relating to documentation was never answered: https://events.vex.com/VEXU/2021-2022/QA/1015

VUR5 states:

Any Fabricated Parts must be accompanied by documentation that demonstrates the Team’s design and construction process for that Fabricated Part.

b. Any Fabricated Parts must have been physically fabricated by Team members. For example, parts ordered by the Team and 3D printed by a third party would be prohibited.

What is the minimum documentation a team can be required to show in order to prove that a part was indeed physically manufactured by a member of the team?

"<VUR5> a. The minimum acceptable form of documentation is an engineering drawing with multiple views for the part in question. These drawings may be included in a Team’s Engineering Notebook, or in a standalone appendix to the Engineering Notebook."

<VUR5> b. dictates that parts must have been physically fabricated by team members and not outsourced to a 3rd party for manufacture. The minimum acceptable form of documentation specified in <VUR5> a. does not require anything other than a part drawing, which doesn't demonstrate proof of physical fabrication. What additional documentation/proof would robot inspectors, head referees or judges require to ensure a team is not deemed in violation of rules when they actually did manufacture the part.
	
	Related question: Some machinery at universities may not be directly operable by team members, especially undergraduates, due to the high value of a machine or other health and safety requirements. An example is a 5-axis CNC machine requiring a qualified operator but the team member can stand next to the actual operator and watch the process - is this physical fabrication by a team member?

	Hoping for an answer sooner than 3-4 weeks....