2023-2024 FIRST® Tech Challenge

Forum Answered Questions

Traditional

2 | FIRST® Tech Challenge Forum Answered Questions - Traditional

How To Use This Document

The FIRST Tech Challenge Official Q&A Forum is a place where teams can ask questions and receive official answers from game expert moderators. The official FIRST Tech Challenge Question & Answer Forum rulings take precedence over all information in the game manuals.

Moderators will answer team questions beginning each Monday, and close on Thursday at 12:00pm eastern time. The forum answered questions are then converted to PDF (this document) to be easily read by teams and volunteers. This takes place every week for the entire season, so teams should ensure to access the new forum printout each Thursday. Any rule clarifications or changes will apply to events happening that weekend.

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Table of Contents

Traditional and Remote – General Robot Rules (27)

Traditional and Remote – Commercial Off the Shelf Components (16)

Traditional and Remote – Raw and Post Processed Materials (3)

Traditional and Remote – Miscellaneous Robot Electrical Parts and Materials (25)

Traditional and Remote – Sensors and Control System (28)

Traditional and Remote – Robot Software Rules (2)

Traditional – Pre-match Setup (15)

Traditional – All Match Period Gameplay (33)

Traditional – Autonomous Period Gameplay (19)

Traditional – Driver-Controlled Period Gameplay (24)

Traditional – End Game Gameplay (30)

Traditional – Competition Rules (7)

Traditional – Playing Field Setup (11)

Traditional and Remote – The Judging Process (3)

Traditional and Remote– Engineering Portfolio (1)

Traditional and Remote – Judges Interview (1)

Traditional – Advancement (2)

Traditional and Remote – Team Prop Construction Rules (25)

Traditional and Remote – Drone Construction Rules (23)

Traditional and Remote – General Robot

Rules

Q51 Train Model Button Disabled

Q:

I have followed all the steps in the Machine Learning Tutorial Tool Chain and whenever I generate a data set, if I try to train it the start training button does not become active. This is the same issue as described in Q17 but the response to that question does not solve the problem. I have already contacted customer support at FIRST a week ago with no resolution.

A:

This is a technical support question, not a game-specific rules clarification. If the issue persists, please seek help on the ftc-community (https://ftc-community.firstinspires.org/) forums. The FIRST Tech Challenge engineering staff is monitoring those forums, and await your questions.

(Asked by 21915 answer published at September 22nd 2023)

Q63 How enclosed can the hexagons be in the

robot?

Q:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

1/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

How enclosed can the pixels be in the robot? Meaning, do the refs have to see the pixels at all times or can they go into the robot?

A:

Yes, Pixels can be in the robot. However, once inside the Robot it is to a team's advantage to keep the Pixels visible so that it is easy for the Ref to determine the quantity of Pixels that a Robot is carrying, but it is not a requirement.

(Asked by 12682 answer published at September 26th 2023)

Q84 Which previous seasons are disallowed by

<RM06> part b?

Q:

<RM06> b. says "The following season game and scoring elements are not allowed for Robot construction: ...

Team manufactured replicas of COTS current or previous season’s scoring elements." Is the intended meaning of

"previous season’s scoring elements" to be "scoring elements of previous season" i.e. prohibiting just POWERPLAY replicas, or (if we reposition the apostrophe) "previous seasons' scoring elements" as in "scoring elements of [ALL] previous seasons"?

A:

Rule RM06 should be interpreted as referring to only the previous season's game and scoring elements, which for Centerstage means any of the Power Play game and scoring elements.

(Asked by 10723 answer published at October 5th 2023)

Q89 Grappling Hook

Q:

Does the interpretation of <RG06> include grappling hooks? In other words if a hook mechanism is attached to the Rigging, then released form the robot so that it is only held by aircraft cable and then that cable is winched back in order to lift the robot, is this allowed?

A:

A mechanism that operates as described is legal. Note that launching the hook is not legal.

(Asked by 15259 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

Q93 Robot Weight

Q:

What is the max that a robot may weigh this year. I believe in the past it was 40 lbs.

A:

There is no weight restriction this year. See Q38 for additional details.

(Asked by 8136 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

2/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q95 Grappling Hook - Clarification

Q:

This is an clarification on Q89. Which of the following would be considered launching the hook? a) The hook is propelled from the robot attached with fishing line. b) The hook is propelled from the robot attached with aircraft cable. c) The hook is propelled from the robot attached with #25 chain (a safety hazard, yes, but a great hypothetical as we reduce degrees of freedom) d) The hook is propelled from the robot attached to a spring-loaded linear slide.

A:

Placing a hook onto the Rigging by a mechanism (arm, slider, etc.) and then winching on a cable to lift the Robot is allowed. Launching the hook where it travels independent of the Robot is illegal per Rule RG06, regardless of what the connecting cable is made of, and will receive a G24 penalty (major plus yellow card). A1: illegal A2: illegal A3: illegal A4: As long as the hook remains attached to the slide until it is placed on the Rigging, then this mechanism is allowed.

(Asked by 15259 answer published at October 5th 2023)

Q143 Energy source/storage by spring-like

mechanisms or rubber bands clarification

Q:

When RG05 says be careful in the stored energy from spring-like or other mechanisms, Is it then a fair assumption that it is ok to deform a rubber band, spring device, or surgical tubing in a way that stores energy prior to the start of the match. Our intent would be to store energy for the purpose of launching the drone.

A:

Yes, rubber bands, springs, etc. are all acceptable methods for launching a Drone. The intent of RG05 is not to eliminate stored energy devices but to ensure that teams use them safely. Remember that during a match FTA's may have to access your robot and we don't want anyone hurt if the energy is accidentally released.

(Asked by 6889 answer published at October 29th 2023)

Q145 Question About Drone Launching

Q:

Would it be acceptable to use a bow string (or similar) to launch the paper drones from the robot?

A:

There is no rule against using a bow string as a stored energy device to launch a Drone providing it is done safely.

See Q143 for additional details.

(Asked by 6704 answer published at October 31st 2023)

Q149 is pneumatics allowed?

Q:

One of my FTC student is interested in pursuing a pneumatics solution for the claw mechanism. I am trying to lean in and say YES to ideas right now and am exploring any legal or illegal game rules but don't see any related to https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

3/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

pneumatics or dc motors with pump valve attachments?

A:

No, Rule RG01 J expressly forbids the use of pneumatic devices.

(Asked by 23585 answer published at October 29th 2023)

Q154 Can the team numbers be on a moving part or

the robot?

Q:

The most visible part of our robot where we could install the team numbers is on our arm. Would we be allowed to install the team number onto the arm even though it moves? Another point of concern is that at some points in the game the team number might be upside down.

A:

Yes, placing numbers on a moving part of the Robot is allowed providing the numbers are always clearly visible through the range of motion of the mechanism. A Team Number that is temporarily upside down is acceptable.

(Asked by 19591 answer published at October 31st 2023)

Q157 18inch rule in terms of flexible tubing

Q:

When flexible (easily bends) tubing is installed on the robot for intake, can the tubing extend slightly (1/2 inch) beyond the 18-inch boundary of the robot?

A:

The maximum size of the Robot for starting a Match is 18 inches (wide by 18 inches long by 18 inches high.

However, per Rule RG02 b allows for flexible materials surgical tubing to extend up to 0.25 inches (0.635 cm) beyond the 18 inch size constraint. A 1/2" extension is outside of the allowable margin. Consider tucking it in at startup, once the Match starts Robots may expand beyond the starting size constraint.

(Asked by 20373 answer published at November 2nd 2023)

Q180 Is the drone part of the robot?

Q:

For inspection purposes, is the drone considered part of the robot? Is it required to fit within the 18" sizing tool when preloaded? Or is the robot measured before the drone is preloaded? For example, the robot is 17.25" wide, but when the drone is preloaded and the robot is measured from the tip of the wing to the far side of the robot it is now 18.5" wide - is this legal and will it pass inspection?

A:

For sizing purposes, the Drone is not considered part of the Robot. Per Rule RG02a, "Preloaded game elements may extend outside the starting size constraint".

(Asked by 18094 answer published at November 10th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

4/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q181 Field wall keeping robot in starting

configuration Rule <RG02>

Q:

Can a robot with easily flexible parts (such as surgical tubing or a zip tie) start a match with these parts pressed up against the field wall in such a way that they would bend? If this is allowed, then during inspection could a team bend the parts in the same way which they will be bent on the field when a match starts in order to fit within the 18

inch sizing tool since that would be the configuration in which the robot would start the match.

A:

No, the Robot must be within the 18" x 18" x 18" size without relying on any external forces from the sizing box or the wall.

(Asked by 16449 answer published at November 14th 2023)

Q183 <RE01> Allowable Power Switch Label

Q:

Rule <RE01> specifies the requirements for the robot's main power switch label. Does the label shown in the rule have to be made from paper or can an appropriately sized and colored 3D printed replica of the label be used in place of the paper label? One example of a 3D printed power label can be found here

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3097705.

A:

A multi-color plastic label is allowed if it is visually identical to the power button image shown in Game Manual Part 1 rule RE01.

The 3D printed power label referenced in the question is allowed because it is visually identical to the required label. The label has a white background, a red dashed line border, and the correct interior elements colored in black.

(Asked by 21490 answer published at November 16th 2023)

Q191 Roughtop tread used in something other than

drivetrain

Q:

<RG01> a. says "The following types of...parts are not allowed: Those used in a Robot drive system that could potentially damage the Playing Field and/or Scoring Elements such as high traction wheels and high grip tread."

The legal/illegal parts document seems to flat-out ban the HiGrip Wheel and Rough top Tread. If those parts were used in a way that were unlikely to damage anything (say high grip tread as flappy intake), would they be allowed?

A:

High grip tread may not be used in any device that contacts the tile floor due to potential damage to the soft rubber tile. However, the tread may be used elsewhere on the Robot, provided that it does not damage Game Elements (Asked by 10723 answer published at November 16th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

5/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q197 Are team logos considered fiducial markers?

Q:

Our team logo is a pair of eyes. Are we allowed to embed our logo into a 3D-printed team prop?

A:

Based on the feedback we have received from Teams and volunteers we are clarifying and relaxing the restrictions on the types of images that are allowed on the Team Prop. The intent of rule TE03b is: 1. prevent the use of any object on the field that could confuse or distract other Robots.

2. prevent the use of canned solutions to simplify the task of object identification.

Therefore, any image that resembles a QR code, AprilTag, or coded vision target is not allowed. All other images such as team logos, sponsor logos, raised areas, cut outs, etc. are allowed, providing no other rule is violated.

(Asked by 5484 answer published at November 21st 2023)

Q202 Fiducial Legality under RM06c

Q:

In GM1 RM06c, fiducial images of any type are disallowed for Robot construction. In Q192 and Q197, patterns, logos, and images of any type are interpreted as fiducial and disallowed under TE03 because of this. a) Does RM06c use the same definition of "fiducial", and thus prohibit use of patterns (such as patterned pocketing) and team/sponsor logos on team robots? b) Does RM06c concern any fiducial markings on COTS parts? A specific example would be the barcodes on Andymark NeveRest Motors.

A:

The answers to Q192 and 197 have been updated as follows. If this does not answer your question please resubmit.

Based on the feedback we have received from Teams and volunteers we are clarifying and relaxing the restrictions on the types of images that are allowed on the Team Prop. The intent of rule TE03b is: 1. prevent the use of any object on the field that could confuse or distract other Robots.

2. prevent the use of canned solutions to simplify the task of object identification.

Therefore, any image that resembles a QR code, AprilTag, or coded vision target is not allowed. All other images such as team logos, sponsor logos, raised areas, cut outs, etc. are allowed, providing no other rule is violated.

Fiducials as part of a COTS label are allowed.

(Asked by 16461 answer published at November 30th 2023)

Q258 Can I use LED lights for object detection

Q:

Can I use these lights to illuminate my TGE? https://www.amazon.ca/DKKY-Lighting-Spotlight-Headlight-Controller/dp/B0B7MQ84L8/ref=sr_1_6?

crid=21S2CMLNK069S&keywords=rc%2Bled%2Blights&qid=1704045274&sprefix=rc%2Bled%2Blights%2Caps%

2C124&sr=8-6&th=1 These lights will go through the 5V ports on the REV control hub. Are these lights allowed under the <RE12> rules in the game manual part 1

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

6/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

There is not enough information in the descriptions provided to make a yes/no determination.

It's not clear from the Amazon product description whether or not the clear domes on the LEDs are focusing lenses, which would not be compatible with RE12.a - from the description and the intent of the product (as well as the stated use in this question) it appears that the intended use is as a "flashlight" which would not be compatible with RE12.a.

It is also not clear from the description how bright the LEDs are. RE12.b may apply if the lights are bright enough to potentially interfere with other robots, teams, field personnel, etc.

(Asked by 19530 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q262 Robot Moves on Initialization Sticker

Q:

In previous years, rule RG02 required the robot to have a sticker "Robot Moves on Initialization" if it did move during that phase. This year, that requirement seems to be gone. Is that an oversight or do we not need the sticker anymore?

A:

The Robot Moves sticker is not required this year. However, Teams may still place this sticker on their Robot if they wish.

(Asked by 20267 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q264 GoBilda U-channel Sharp Edges

Q:

Our robot inspector has newly informed us this year that our GoBilda U-channels, which make up much of our robot, have too sharp of corners and need to be filed down. If this is true, that means that nearly all teams need to file down a lot of corners, so we want to know if the sharp edges rule applies to this scenario?

A:

The Inspectors have the responsibility for determining If the edges or corners have the potential of cutting a person's skin. If they perceive a hazard, then the edges must be filed.

(Asked by 18119 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q269 Anti-static spray onto robots

Q:

Rev Robotics has documented issues with the IMU in the newer Control Hubs stating ESD as a major contributor.

We understand that the Event Host can decide on the use use anti-static spray on the field. We also understand that teams may spray their robots with anti-static spay as long as it is done outside the venue. Is there a time interval required between the time of spraying a robot and inspection or game play? We are presuming the spraying of the robot can not be done post inspection.

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

7/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

You are correct that event organizers are encouraged by FIRST to apply staticide on their fields, but it is at their discretion.

Teams who wish to apply staticide to their robots can do so at anytime during the competition provided that the spray is fully dry before the robot is introduced to the field. Teams may also be asked by venue hosts to spray outside due to the potential fumes. Be advised that it may take upwards of 1 hour for the spray to fully dry.

(Asked by 4327 answer published at January 17th 2024)

Q272 Are phone holders that clip on the controller

allowed?

Q:

A driver for my team is looking to use a phone Mount clip to secure the phone to the game pad, during match driving. This would allow the driver to use his hands more freely and see the phone telemetry while he is driving.

Rule DS03 allows mechanical modifications to a game pad controller, but it is unclear if that same rule extends to phones. This is really more of an enhansement, adding a clip to the game pad, but not changing it any way. Can we use the clip?

A:

A phone mounting clip is allowed providing the field personnel can clearly see the screen.

(Asked by 19460 answer published at January 11th 2024)

Q274 RG01 -i clarification

Q:

We were going through the inspection checklist before our competition in a week. Our coach noticed that the aluminum of our intake drags of the floor. Technically grounding the chassis to the field. The rule states that "Those that are designed to electrically ground the Robot frame to the Playing Field" are illegal. Considering the fact that it was not designed for grounding, are we ok? Or should we scramble a replacement material?

A:

Intakes, or grabbers, that touch the floor are legal providing they do not cause damage to the Tiles during operation.

(Asked by 18045 answer published at January 18th 2024)

Q302 Autonomous selector switch

Q:

We have 6 different autonomous programs currently. We need to account for Blue vs red side. We have different ones based on our alliance partners capability. Is it legal to add a selector switch, rotary or other on the robot so we can have one Autonomous program but we select which program we want to run before the match? We understand the switch must be set BEFORE match play and cannot be touched after the randomized dice are chosen. We will already know the program we want to run.

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

8/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Yes. Sensors (including switches) that are compatible with RE11 are allowed to be used on a robot. We also believe the answer to Q278 (/qa/278) is also related to your question from a software-centric perspective.

(Asked by 24488 answer published at February 1st 2024)

Q312 Clarification PWM Signal wire may be relieved

from Q85, RE14

Q:

The PWM wire (of the 3 wires) is a pulse width (of ~800-2200 microsecond) carrying wire and not current carrying.

Teams can optimize and reduce the wire size to better innovate. Manufacturers utilize the same gauge for PWM as Power for convenience and not necessity, lower gauges will not create negative impact or safety concern and increase innovation. Team design and reliability is the proof. Can FIRST exempt PWM signal wires and allow

=>32awg.

A:

The short answer is No.

For reasons of safety, all wires in the PWM wiring bundle must be no less than 22AWG as referenced in Q85

(/qa/85) .

A simple inversion of the connector where it plugs into the control/expansion hubs would result in the ground and signal lines being swapped and the undersized signal line now needing to carry the full current of the servo.

(Asked by 3763 answer published at February 7th 2024)

Q318 Anti-Static Paint

Q:

Regarding Q269, it talks about the ability to use staticide on robots. Is it allowed to be able to use Anti-Static Paint?

It is not clearly stated as to whether or not it is legal, and we want to verify. It would be on our side plates and it would be dry by comp.

A:

RM03 states, "Allowed materials and legal COTS parts may be modified (drilled, cut, painted, etc.), as long as no other rules are violated." FIRST Tech Challenge does not restrict the kinds of paints used, except those prohibited by RG01 (containing hazardous materials like lead, cause a mess on the field, etc...). When painting COTS

parts/materials, DO NOT paint over any identifying markers (labels, serial numbers, etc) that inspectors may need to use to identify the components being painted. Teams should be aware that these paints may have different handling precautions over generic paints and that the manufacturer's recommendations and the MSD sheet should be consulted before using.

(Asked by 10355 answer published at February 8th 2024)

Q324 Sister Team Robot at States

Q:

I know this violates the spirit of rule 7, but I'm looking for definitive authority to appease those who disagree. Can a team that advances to the State Championship use a Robot built by a team that did not advance? Rule 7.1 states

"A FIRST Tech Challenge Robot is a remotely operated vehicle designed and built by a registered FIRST Tech https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

9/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Challenge Team..." It does not specifically state that the "registered FIRST Tech Challenge Team" needs to be the same team that built the robot. Any guidance?

A:

This is not legal per rule C05 "One Robot Per Team", part d. - "It is against this rule to use a Robot built by another Team".

(Asked by 9986 answer published at February 8th 2024)

Traditional and Remote – Commercial Off

the Shelf Components

Q12 Legal or illegal build kits.

Q:

Can you inform me if Go bilda build kits have been deemed illegal? There is no mention of them in the legal or illegal parts and I spent a lot of money upgrading this winter to try and compete.

A:

Teams may acquire parts and materials from any readily available source, including GoBilda, providing they do not violate any robot build rules. Pay specific attention to Rules RM01 and RM02 when purchasing parts and kits.

(Asked by 16610 answer published at September 19th 2023)

Q25 Exceptions to rule RM02

Q:

Good evening. Provided no other rules are violated, which of the following kits are legal COTS items under the

<RM02> exception for COTS drive chassis? Assume that a "swerve module" is a collection of parts including a wheel and mechanisms to rotate the wheel in two axis. 1) A single "swerve module." 2) A bundle of 2 or more

"swerve modules." 3) A complete "swerve" drivetrain, including 2 or more "swerve modules" and a frame, necessitating no additional parts to be assembled as a drive chassis.

A:

Q1: A single swerve module kit does not meet the requirements in Rule RM02 and therefore is not legal.

Q2: A bundle of swerve modules violates Rule RM02and is not legal.

Q3: A complete drivetrain made up of illegal parts is not legal.

(Asked by 16379 answer published at September 22nd 2023)

Q40 Follow up to q25 and Exceptions to RM02

Q:

In q25, it was asked if a complete swerve drivetrain kit is a legal COTS drive chassis. The given answer was "A complete drivetrain made up of illegal parts is not legal." Follow up questions: 1) Which of the components in the proposed COTS kit are illegal parts? It would comprise entirely of motion components (bearings, shafts, gears) https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

10/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

and structural components (mounts, frame, screws). 2) Is a complete swerve drivetrain kit compromising only of parts allowed under <RM02> a legal COTS kit?

A:

A swerve drive module, by its very design, takes a one degree of freedom (DOF) motion and adds additional degrees of freedom to change the motion - the total DOF is dependent on the implementation, but it is always more than one. These kinds of components are not allowed by RM02's single DOF restriction for COTS parts, whether bundled in a COTS drive chassis kit or not.

(Asked by 16379 answer published at September 24th 2023)

Q96 Gobilda linear slide legality

Q:

Is the GoBilda Steel Viper-Slide (https://tinyurl.com/5bdx8rpb) a legal COTS part under RM02?

A:

Per RM02, linear slides are a legal COTS. Therefore, the Gobilda Linear Slide is a legal COTs part.

(Asked by 20326 answer published at October 5th 2023)

Q119 Definition of COTS Battery

Q:

Per RE12 F.ii, it states that an external COTS USB battery pack is allowed to power LEDs on the robot. What is considered an external COTS battery pack? What are the limitations on said battery packs? Additionally, are converters designed to pull 12V from the battery pack such as https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08NRM6X2Y

allowed? It would be connected to this adapter to allow use with the REV Blinkin

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHNNWJMD.

A:

The COTS USB battery pack mentioned in RE12.f.ii is a simple USB charging battery intended to allow mobile recharging of USB powered devices (phones, tablets, etc). There are many examples

(https://www.anker.com/products/a1287) available from many sources.

Thank you for asking about Battery Pack limitations. COTS USB Battery Packs are limited to a capacity of 27,000mAh or less. This is also the standard TSA limit (https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/lithium-batteries) for

taking Lithium-containing COTS USB Battery Packs (with 3.7V cells) onto aircraft in the USA.

COTS USB Battery Packs that adhere to the USB-PD or USB-QC specification may be used to provide a 12V

source as described. Please ensure that the COTS USB External Battery is in no way connected to the robot's power system.

When using COTS USB External Battery Packs for legal LED and related uses, please observe a heightened level of vigilence in their safe use. The Robot Controller Power Distribution page (https://ftc-

docs.firstinspires.org/en/latest/control_hard_compon/rc_components/power_distr/power-distr.html) on ftc-docs has

been updated with proper guidance for using COTS USB External Battery Packs (https://ftc-

docs.firstinspires.org/en/latest/control_hard_compon/rc_components/power_distr/power-distr.html#cots-usb-

battery-pack). Please review this information prior to using any COTS USB External Batteries.

(Asked by 8693 answer published at October 24th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

11/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q179 COTS Scissor Lift

Q:

Are scissor lifts legal (specifically with regard to RM02)? The scissor lift will move up and down. It will be turned by a handle that rotates. This is the only axis of rotation we can identify. Do the lifts contain more than one axis of rotation or not? Link to scissor lift dimensions and information: https://www.amazon.com/Stainless-Steel-Stand-Table-Laboratory/dp/B07KDXJGX9/ref=sr_1_3?

crid=M7CME9QU2WX2&keywords=mini+scissor+lift&qid=1696890453&sprefix=mini+scissor+lift%2Caps%2C99& sr=8-3

A:

Update 11/16/223 Yes, this is a legal COTS mechanism. It meets the singe degree of freedom rule. One input (rotation of the leadscrew) for one output (vertical lift of the stage).

(Asked by 18094 answer published at November 15th 2023)

Q187 Legality of goBilda linear servo and servo-

driven gear rack

Q:

Are the following COTS components from goBilda legal under RM02? 1. Hitec Linear Servo (https://www.gobilda.com/hitec-linear-servo-100mm-stroke-4-1mm-sec-22-2kg-thrust/) 2. Servo-Driven Gear Rack Kit (https://www.gobilda.com/servo-driven-gear-rack-kit-single-gear-rack/)

A:

A1: Yes, the linear servo is a legal 3 wire servo. A2: Yes, rack and pinions are legal.

(Asked by 23216 answer published at November 16th 2023)

Q195 Carabiners Allowable?

Q:

Are carabiners allowable parts?

A:

Yes, carabiners are a legal COTS part.

(Asked by 6168 answer published at November 21st 2023)

Q196 Clarification on Wound Springs and Degrees of

Freedom

Q:

Regarding RM02 Would a sub assembly that contains a wound spring but produces a linear motion be allowed (as a single DOF)? Specific examples being a tape measure and a retractable badge holder. In both cases the body internally contains an inaccessible rotary mechanism, but what extends from the body (metal tape and string respectively) is linear. Would the gimbled fitting on the end of the badge holder be disallowed as an added DOF? If so, could we modify the badge holder to remove?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

12/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

Tape measures and similar devices, like a badge holder, are allowed. There is no need to take off the gimbaled fitting on the badge holder.

(Asked by 21606 answer published at November 21st 2023)

Q198 Double Sided Tape

Q:

Can double-sided adhesive be used on our "pixel-picking up device" on our robot? We've designed a flat plate with double-sided crafting tape that is slightly sticky, leaves no residue and cannot actually reach the playing field. It can release pixels with a push rod system. More than happy to provide photos to help with description.

A:

No, double-sided adhesive cannot be used on a "pixel-picking up" device. Any adhesive contact with a game element, scoring element, or field element is prohibited.

(Asked by 21485 answer published at November 21st 2023)

Q237 Is this bendable fiber glass tube FTC legal?

Q:

My team began using a bendable piece of fiberglass as the linear actuator that extends the pixels out. However, I was reading the game manual and saw that any part that is not readily available to any team is not FTC legal.

Technically any team could get it on the company's website, but they mostly work with military customers, and you have to contact their sales department to get a hold of one. Could we use it on our robot? Link: https://www.rolatube.com/product/system-50-single-tube-mast-mil/

A:

The bendable fiberglass material is legal.

(Asked by 23574 answer published at December 19th 2023)

Q244 One Way Bearings regarding Degrees of

Freedom

Q:

According to RM02, COTS parts are limited to 1 degree of freedom, and mention how ratcheting wrenches are illegal. One-way bearings have a similar design, so would they break this rule of more than one degree of freedom?

A:

There are many types and designs of one-way bearings. Some use a system of springs and wedges to prevent backward motion. This is similar to a ratchet and is not allowed. Other types rely on the design of the internal races to prevent reverse motion. This type of bearing is allowed.

(Asked by 10355 answer published at December 19th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

13/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q308 Robot Inspection

Q:

1. In reference to the part W44609 TETRIX® MAX Gripper Arm Kit from legal and illegal parts, the robot inspectors referred to rule RM02 Commercial Off-The-Shelf Parts. Our claw uses one gear, one bracket, and the 3 arm linkages from the kit on the website https://www.idesignsol.ca/products/claw-kit-276-2212. However, our claw has a custom 3-d printed second gear, second bracket, one custom arm linkage, claw tips and servo mount. Our claw works through the two gears powered by one servo.....

A:

In general, a 100% team manufactured component/assembly is allowed, even if it is an exact copy of an illegal COTS component. If any portion of the component/assembly is part of an illegal COTS kit (i.e., not manufactured by the team), the entire component/assembly is not allowed. Of course, using general purpose fasteners (e.g., screws, nuts, bolts, etc.) from an illegal kit is allowed.

(Asked by 9990 answer published at February 8th 2024)

Q309 Robot Inspection continued from number 1

Q:

2. Our claw works such that it is connected to one gear that spins another gear. As this is one input = one output.

Please respond if this is legal or if you need more information regarding this or with a way we can send a photo showing how our mechanism works. Coach Ray Alford Team: Robo Vikings #9990

A:

We believe Q308 answers your question. If not, please re-submit with additional detail.

(Asked by 9990 answer published at February 8th 2024)

Q317 Vision Sensors Legality

Q:

Q298 asked about the legality of Oak Lite 1 vision sensor. What about the other sensors listed as legal on page 11

of the legal-illegal parts list under vision sensors? The HuskyLens and PixyCam are also shown with the Oak Lite 1

as options. Additionally the HuskyLens has supported documentation in the SDK, as referenced in Game manual 1, section 7.2.1.

A:

You are correct, the image of the Oak-1 Lite was included as a mistake. We apologize for this error. The HuskyLens and PixyCam/Pixy2 meet all requirements for a Vision Sensor.

(Asked by 20077 answer published at February 8th 2024)

Q349 Use fans to cool robot

Q:

We are trying to plan a robot base for next year and are trying to figure out if we would be able to use off-the-shelf fans for a cooling system for the motors. <RE10> Defines a servo as any motor with less than 6V, specifically https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

14/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

allowing any servo that is compatible with the control hub <RG01> only explicitly disallows closed gas devices, and doesn't mention fans Would an off-the-shelf fan be allowed by these rules?

A:

No. COTS fans are not servos, and RE10 merely states that servos will only be provided 6V or less by the Control System. A "fan" in and of itself is not illegal, but it must use a legal actuator and follow all other rules (including safety rules).

(Asked by 9853 answer published at March 12th 2024)

Traditional and Remote – Raw and Post

Processed Materials

Q67 V-Slot aluminum legal to use?

Q:

Hi. Is it legal to use V-Slot Aluminum? There is a picture on page 16 of the "Legal/Illegal Parts" document that has V-Slot piece pictured however it is under the T-slot section. Thanks!

A:

Yes, v-slot aluminum is a legal material.

(Asked by 21630 answer published at September 26th 2023)

Q82 Are rubber bands legal for shooting the drone?

Q:

Are rubber bands legal?

A:

Yes, rubber bands are a legal part of the Robot. They are not a legal part of the Drone, so when shooting the Drone, the rubber band must remain attached to the Robot.

(Asked by 13246 answer published at October 2nd 2023)

Q288 Which VEX parts are legal in FTC

Centerstage?

Q:

I've wanted to know if we can use plates, beams, gears, chains, wheels, connectors from VEX robotics kit?

A:

VEX structural and electrical elements are treated the same as any other COTS part (e.g. they must meet the single-degree-of-freedom threshold of RM02, allowed materials limitations of RM01, etc...). Note: with the exception of the Vex EDR 393 motor and paired Motor Controller 29, Vex electronics are not allowed.

(Asked by 24311 answer published at January 25th 2024)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

15/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Traditional and Remote – Miscellaneous

Robot Electrical Parts and Materials

Q19 GoBilda Motor Legality

Q:

Section <RE09> of Game Manual Part 1 does not list any type of GoBilda motor as an allowed motor. Seeing how GoBilda advertises their motors as FTC legal, they have been widely used in previous years, and that they are a selectable option in the robot configuration, are the 5203 Series GoBilda motors FTC legal?

A:

goBILDA motor/gearbox combinations utilizing the Modern Robotics/MATRIX 12V DC Motors, along with their attached single degree-of-freedom gearboxes, are legal per rule RE10c. This currently includes motor/gearbox combinations in the goBILDA Yellow Jacket 5201, 5202, 5203, and 5204 series.

(Asked by 5237 answer published at September 22nd 2023)

Q27 Adafruit NeoDriver LED controller legality

Q:

Is the Adafruit NeoDriver, I2C to NeoPixel Driver Board, https://www.adafruit.com/product/5766 legal to use for controlling addressable LED lights of the WS2812 variety (NeoPixels) The module would be plugged into and powered by the Control Hub's 5V auxiliary ports. Using a JST SH (Stemma QT) to PH cable, the NeoDriver would be connected to an I2C port on the Control Hub. The NeoPixel wires would be connected to the remaining 3

terminals, 5Vo, GND, and NEO (data).

A:

Yes, per RE12.e

(Asked by 16464 answer published at September 22nd 2023)

Q28 Gobilda linear servos

Q:

Are Gobilda linear servos legal?

A:

As long as a servo meets the constraints listed in RE10 it is allowed.

(Asked by 8899 answer published at September 22nd 2023)

Q29 GoBilda Odometry Pods

Q:

In past years, we have seen odometry kits banned. Are GoBilda's new odometry pods legal, or do we need to continue to build our own? https://www.gobilda.com/odometry-pod-43mm-width-48mm-wheel-2048-ppr-encoder/

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

16/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

Each new season brings a new set of Game Manuals and rules, it's never advised to make assumptions based on prior seasons.

Rule RM02 this season includes a trio of exceptions, one of them allowing odometry kits.

(Asked by 14840 answer published at September 22nd 2023)

Q62 Are solenoid actuators allowed if used as a

servo?

Q:

Our team is considering using a solenoid (6v) in lieu of a servo. Does this run afoul of regulations?

A:

Solenoids are not allowed per RE16.

(Asked by 14903 answer published at September 25th 2023)

Q68 Is it legal to remove a Motor Mount to use on a

robot?

Q:

Is it legal to remove a motor mount from a Modern Robotics/MATRIX 12VDC Motor with 8mm REX™ Pinion Shaft (5000-0002-4008) to use on the robot?

A:

Yes, it is legal to use a motor in which the motor mount/pinion shaft has been removed.

(Asked by 21630 answer published at September 27th 2023)

Q69 Can we power sensors connected to the analog,

digital, and i2c port from 5v aux port?

Q:

Past interpretation of the prior version of RE11.a allowed for many 5v in, 3.3v out sensors to be connected to the aux 5v port. The new RE11.a seems to clarify where sensors can be connected, but was it intentional to outlaw use of the 5v aux port to power them even though they are otherwise connected to the analog, digital, and i2c ports for all but power? The aux port is used to power other sensor port devices, like I2C lights (see Q27) A:

No. Sensors may only be powered via the ports listed in RE11.a. If your sensor needs 5v, you will need to utilize the REV Logic Level Converter as described in RE11.b

(Asked by 14423 answer published at September 28th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

17/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q71 REV grounding strap wiring constraints?

Q:

Reading RE14.k, it seems that the only legal connection points for a REV Grounding Strap are the female XT30

ports of a Control Hub, Expansion Hub, XT30 Power Distribution Block, or the female XT30 on a REV PowerPole to XT30 adapter. Q1: Is this an accurate conclusion? Q2: Does the "No other...adapters are permitted" portion of RE14.k also apply to electrical connections "upstream" (towards the Main Power Switch) of the CH/EH/PDB/PP

component the grounding strap is connected to?

A:

Answer 1: RE14k requires that the REV Grounding Strap be directly connected to a fully-COTS component with XT30 connectors (includes the REV provided XT30/Powerpole adapter). It may not be connected to team manufactured wiring.

Answer 2: No. Teams are allowed to wire their robot as needed as long as the wiring does not violate any of the provisions of RE14.

(Asked by 7172 answer published at September 28th 2023)

Q75 Servo legality

Q:

Is this servo legal, https://a.co/d/cFk2HOy? If not, are there any legal servos that have 50-70 kg per centimeter with 270 degree rotation?

A:

In general, it is not possible for us to rule on the legality of every possible servo. As long as the servo meets the criteria in RE10 it is legal.

We thought it important to add a few cautions for teams exploring large servos:

watch your total power budget. the main robot battery is fused at 20A

the servo power module is over-current limited at 15A

pay attention to the stall current. the above servo has a 8.5A stall current - a significant percentage of total robot power and of servo power module capacity

plan for variances in the stated stall currents for servos - a plus/minus 10% variance is likely sustained high-current draw can cause the battery to "brown out", with the voltage dropping. large drops can cause loss of connectivity and reboots of control/expansion hubs

(Asked by 21630 answer published at October 2nd 2023)

Q85 Are ethernet cables allowed for cable

management?

Q:

We have some questions about using an (coiled) CAT 6 ethernet cable to power multiple servos, so we don't need cable extensions, since it is within spec of CAT 6. Could you please clarify if this is allowed, and if so, under what circumstances: a) Is it allowed to cut the ethernet cable and solder servo mounts to it? b) Can we use a keystone, so you don't need to cut the cable? c) Create a custom PCB connecting an RJ45 connector to multiple servo connectors? (With appropriate insulation)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

18/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

In general, bundled cables could be legal, as long as the individual wires within the bundle meet the requirements of RE14.i as applied to the specific connection being extended.

Be aware that typical CAT6 cables use 23 AWG, thinner than the minimum required for servo interconnections (22

AWG).

If you do end up utilizing bundled cables, be prepared to show documentation for the specifications of bundle and the specific circuits/interconnections made through the bundle.

For your other questions:

a) attaching connectors to allowed wiring is permitted per RE14.e

b) keystone connectors fall under RE14.e as well

c) no. a PCB would be an example of a custom circuit and disallowed per RE16

(Asked by 19444 answer published at October 4th 2023)

Q102 Legality of modifying COTS Circuits

Q:

As per Game Manual Part I, "Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) interface modules designed to solely control light sources are allowed between the light sources and the components listed in <RE12>d" Our team wishes to modify a REV Digital LED Indicator to change the color of the LED diodes as to avoid creating a "custom circuit" (RE16).

As this is not listed as either an allowed or disallowed modification in RE15, are we allowed to do this, if the replacement diode is of a similar spec?

A:

This type of modification is not allowed. This would constitute an internal modification of the circuits in the LED

indicator and is not allowed per RE15

(Asked by 542 answer published at October 10th 2023)

Q141 [GND, 3.3V] Buses

Q:

The [GND, 3.3V] pins on the REV Hubs appear to be on the same internal [GND, 3.3V] buses. Is it permissible to connect the [GND, 3.3V] pins to external [GND, 3.3V] buses? External Bus could be two wires of appropriate guage on a slip ring or coiled wire. We feel this would simplify wiring for many applications.

A:

No sharing of GND or 3.3v wiring. For two predominant reasons;

keep the inspection process simple and easy to understand

not all 3.3v ports are internally connected to the same protections circuit.

(Asked by 9999 answer published at October 31st 2023)

Q146 REV Blinkin firmware update and/or

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

19/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

customization

Q:

REV has instructions for updating the firmware in the Blinkin LED Driver, including how to modify the firmware to create custom light patterns. https://github.com/REVrobotics/Blinkin-Firmware Q1: Could custom firmware following the "Creating a custom function" instructions solely for producing custom light patterns to indicate the color of pixels held in the robot be legal? Q2: If no, would it still be legal to follow REV's instructions to update the OEM firmware without modification?

A:

The answer to both questions is no.

Updating the REV Blinkin firmware in the described manner would violate RE15 - for allowed modifications as well as RE16 as the system would now effectively be equivalent to a generic programmable device (i.e. arduino, raspberry pi, etc.)

(Asked by 21430 answer published at November 2nd 2023)

Q172 Clarification on powering USB hub for Control

Hub (RE13/RE14)

Q:

RE13.b.ii specifies that Vision Cameras can connect to REV Control Hub (Robot Controller) using a "powered USB

hub", but doesn't mention allowed power sources for the USB hub. RE14.c.ii mentions energy sources for a powered USB hub, but RE14 also says "smartphone" robot controller device and RE14.c.ii refers only to connecting the hub to an Expansion Hub USB. Thus RE14 perhaps excludes the Control Hub USB. Q: Can a USB

hub connected to a Control Hub be powered by sources listed in RE14.c.ii?

A:

Yes, powered USB Hubs may only draw energy from the sources listed in RE14.c.ii.

(Asked by 7172 answer published at November 8th 2023)

Q184 Is modifying the case of a webcam legal?

Q:

Is modifying the housing of the vision sensor circuit/PCB legal? To be clear, we are not modifying the circuit, only the case of the webcam. The 3D printed housing wouldn’t affect the safety. <RE15> says “Approved electrical and electronic devices may be modified to make them more usable; they may not be modified internally or in any way that affects their safety.” The modification would comply with <RE13 B> and <RE11>. Documentation of the modification could be presented at inspection.

A:

Modifications to the housing of a vision sensor are acceptable as long as the modifications don't obscure the identification of the vision sensor for robot inspectors

(Asked by 11206 answer published at November 21st 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

20/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q193 GoBilda Servo Voltage range acceptable for

rule RE10?

Q:

Our team is new and wanted to confirm whether this servo was acceptable for use. RE10 states that servos that are compatible with the REV control hub are acceptable to use (three-wire servo connector, etc). There's also a separate requirement for it to not exceed 6V. The GoBilda servo 2000 Series Dual Servo Dual Mode (SKU: 2000-0025-0002) has a voltage range of 4.8V-7.4V (pulse amplitude of 3-5V). Thank you.

A:

We believe the wording of the existing servo rules may be a bit misleading in their intent with respect to operating voltages.

Servos that are compatible with a 5-6v range are allowed. The REV Expansion and Control Hubs produce 5v servo outputs. The REV Servo Power Module produces 6v.

(Asked by 23676 answer published at November 21st 2023)

Q223 Can a LED screen, which displays real-time

video from Logitech C920, be mounted to robot?

Q:

Can an LED screen, which displays real-time video from Logitech C920 vision camera, can be mounted to robot (we would like to use the display like a rear-view camera during tele-op gameplay)?

A:

No. An LED video display screen (or any other video display screen) would fall under RE16 - Additional Electronics and is not allowed.

(Asked by 48 answer published at December 7th 2023)

Q229 Servo current limit on REV control hub

Q:

The inspection checklist states that servos must not exceed the manufacturer specs for the controller <RE11>. The REV control hub has a 2 amp limit per servo port pair (https://docs.revrobotics.com/duo-control/control-system-overview/control-hub-basics). Commonly used GoBilda servos have a stall current of 2 amps at 4.8V and 2.5 amps at 6V. So the GoBilda servo could use slightly more than 2 amps at 5V (REV hub output). Does that mean a GoBilda servo cannot be directly connected to the REV hub?

A:

Servos are allowed to be directly connected to the REV Hubs (Control and Expansion) as long as the Voltage range of the servo is compatible with the hub (see RE10). Current draw is not a factor for compatibility, only for performance. For a much more in-depth answer, please visit this FTC-Community forum post (https://ftc-

community.firstinspires.org/t/rev-control-hub-servo-port-compatibility/858).

(Asked by 14343 answer published at December 11th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

21/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q249 Legality of GoBilda Servo Extension

Q:

Is the GoBilda Servo extension (sku 3802-2745-4527) legal? https://shorturl.at/krGN0 It is not on the legal or illegal list It seems to be a wire extension as it only passes through the signals. One potential conflict is- Game rule RE14.i.iii states PWM signals must be 22AWG or gauge specified by the manufacturer. Cat6 cable is specified by GoBilda for the extension but Cat6 is normally 23AWG. Summary- Can we use the extension and use it with a CAT6 cable legally?

A:

No. The goBILDA 4 Channel Servo Extension via CAT6 (https://www.gobilda.com/4-channel-servo-extension-via-

cat6/) product is not a legal servo power injector as per RE10.

Please note that some servo products, like the goBILDA Servo Extension and goBILDA Servo PDB, are not designed for nor intended to be used with the REV Control Hub or FIRST Tech Challenge Competition electronics.

Be sure to consult Game Manual 1 and carefully read all product documentation when evaluating product legality in FIRST Tech Challenge.

(Asked by 8479 answer published at December 19th 2023)

Q251 Flashing LED Legality

Q:

<RE12> states that signalling LED should flash at a rate no faster than 1 hertz. Q1: Is a single or small set (2-3) of flashes where each flash is less than 1 second long disallowed by this? Q2: Is strip of LEDs that has a fast moving pattern, but each LED in the patter, flashes a a rate less than 1 hertz disallowed by this?

A:

The Orange Box at the bottom of RE12 is a set of recommendations and guidelines. Teams who employ LEDs with quick (>1Hz) flashing or motion patterns must be aware that they may be requested to change or disable their flashing or motion patterns at the discretion of the Head Referee regardless of frequency or duration of the flashing.

(Asked by 18127 answer published at December 19th 2023)

Q252 Suction, motor, fan, air for CenterStage Intake

Q:

Rethinking intake for CenterStage. One student's idea is to use SUCTION CUPS for pickup and a motor blowing air through tube(s) to suction cups to release the pixel. The motor would connect to a custom-made fan-like device and tubing. Is this FTC legal?

A:

No, suction devices are illegal. Rule RG01.j specifically prohibits vacuum based mechanisms.

(Asked by 21377 answer published at December 19th 2023)

Q268 LED Bettery

Q:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

22/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Can I use a second REV battery connected to the Blinkin LED Driver to power the LEDs?

A:

No.

Powering light sources from a 2nd main battery would violate at least two rules: RE03 (only 1 main battery pack per robot) and RE12.f (allowed light source power sources).

While a USB battery pack is allowed, it is not equivalent to a 2nd main robot battery. The USB battery pack includes safety features not found with the main robot battery.

(Asked by 17257 answer published at January 10th 2024)

Q330 Legal Grounding Straps

Q:

Is the Andymark Resistive Grounding Strap (am-4648, https://www.andymark.com/products/resistive-grounding-strap) a legal grounding strap for use on the robot as per RE14k? It has identical connectors on both ends, the same resistor rating, length, and wire gauge.

A:

No, the AndyMark Resistive Grounding Strap (am-4648) (https://www.andymark.com/products/resistive-grounding-

strap) is not a legal grounding strap for the 2023-2024 CENTERSTAGE presented by RTX season. Only the REV

Resistive Grounding Strap (REV-31-1269) (https://www.revrobotics.com/rev-31-1269/) is legal this season.

(Asked by 3507 answer published at February 13th 2024)

Q336 Acceptable Wire Gauge for Custom Servo

Cables

Q:

We are looking to create a custom servo extension cable for our slide. Following rule 14.i.iii, would we be we allowed to use a 3-wire 18 AWG multi-conductor coiled cable to create a custom servo extension? Is it acceptable to solder on 22AWG servo extension cables to the bare ends with heat shrink and strain relief to create the cable?

The wire would have 22AWG -> 18AWG -> 22 AWG. Additionally, could we use a 4-wire multi conductor and have two servos share the +5V and GND wires?

A:

The use of 18AWG wire to make servo extensions fits within the guidance for servo wire sizes and connections (i.e. 22AWG or larger, remember that smaller numbers equate to larger wire diameters).

While it's legal to allow multiple servos to share servo power from the same servo port (e.g. using a servo "Y"

cable or equivalent) it is not allowed to combine power across multiple servo ports - that could create potential overcurrent conditions and safety issues. If you do use a "Y" cable (or equivalent), be careful not to exceed the current rating of 22AWG wire; each servo will still attempt to pull its maximum rated current at stall, regardless of the size wire being used, and that current stacks for both servos.

(Asked by 20681 answer published at February 29th 2024)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

23/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q350 Cable Management for Viper Slider

Q:

We are using a viper slider. We are wondering if the following cable would be legal to use for our servos that are part of the sliding system? https://www.coilcablespecialist.com/22-awg-6-conductors-electronic-shielded-coil-cable-2206em0s.html

A:

In general it's not possible for us to blanket rule on the legality of a generic cable (with no connectors) because it's impossible for us to predict how you'll eventually be using that cable. This is especially true for multi-conductor cable bundles where there are even more considerations to make.

When considering the legality of a multi-conductor cable used for powering/controlling servos, keep in mind these considerations:

If each conductor of the 22AWG cable bundle is 1:1 replacing a single conductor in an existing 22AWG

servo cable bundle (6 conductors = 2 servo 3-wire bundles) then you will likely not run afoul of current carrying limits; be careful to read the cable specs to ensure the cable can handle the current load (2+ Amps for most servos).

RE14.f and RE14.i will need to be carefully considered, especially if you'll be crimping new 3-pin 0.1" servo

connectors to the multi-conductor bundle (colored heat shrink (https://a.co/d/iYS8y4b) does wonders).

Be sure to have documentation about the wire bundle conductors at inspection as highlighted by the orange box in RE14.i.iv.

(Asked by 23554 answer published at March 12th 2024)

Traditional and Remote – Sensors and

Control System

Q36 T265 camera legal this year?

Q:

Will the Intel T265 Tracking Camera be legal this season 2023-2024? This camera model was legal in the past. A lot of teams purchased and spent a lot of time on them already.

A:

No, the Intel T265 is not legal for use. The Intel T265 is a stereoscopic (having more than one image sensor) camera which would violate rule RE13.b.iii in Game Manual 1.

(Asked by 15167 answer published at September 23rd 2023)

Q56 Are optic flow sensors considered image

sensors?

Q:

Would a optic flow sensor considered as an image sensor as in the definition of the Vision Camera and Visions Sensor?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

24/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

An optic flow sensor usually combines a camera, distance sensor (sonar or lidar are most common), and sometimes an IMU. This type of device uses these component sensors to make decisions and provides outputs that can be read/used by a control system - this is the very definition of a Vision Sensor as defined by Game Manual 1. Just be sure the device does not violate any Vision Sensor rules in RE13.b, and also ensure that none of the component sensors violate any rules such as RE12.c in the case of optic flow sensors containing lasers (such as lidar sensors).

(Asked by 19071 answer published at September 24th 2023)

Q59 Vision Camera Questions

Q:

We are a rookie team so we want to know how many vision cameras are allowed to use this year (one other team told us that only one vision camera can be used). Also are Pixy or Pixy2 Cam allowed?

A:

1. Welcome to FIRST Tech Challenge!

2. There are no rules that specify a maximum quantity on sensors, Vision Cameras, or Vision Sensors.

3. The Pixy and Pixy2 are Vision Sensors, the Pixy2 is specifically called out as a common Vision Sensor in the definition of a Vision Sensor. Note that the Pixy and Pixy2 do not have native software support in SDK

9.0, so teams will need to develop their own software drivers to use them.

(Asked by 23280 answer published at September 24th 2023)

Q83 Will the OpenMV Cam RT1062 be allowed?

Q:

We were wondering if the OpenMV Cam RT1062 qualifies as a Vision Sensor since you can upload your own code to it, but it doesn't stream images to the control hub if you use it with I2C, however, if you connect it with USB it can. (Section 7.2.1 Game Manual 1) So is it allowed to be used?

A:

No. This is a user programmable microcontroller board and as such falls into the category of "Additional Electronics disallowed by RE16.

(Asked by 19444 answer published at October 2nd 2023)

Q98 Using Motorola phone as a camera sensor with

a Control Hub

Q:

Are we allowed to use a Motorola phone as a camera sensor connected to a Rev Robotics Control Hub in order to have a video processing stream as opposed to a frame by frame processing stream. We do not want to use the FTC app on the phone as a secondary control hub.

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

25/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

The short answer is no.

This type of phone usage would need to fit into either a Vision Sensor model or a Vision Camera model.

RE11.a requires that sensors (including vision sensors) be connected only to I2C, digital I/O, encoder, or analog ports of the REV control or expansion hubs. A USB port is not a valid connection for a sensor. The usage is therefore not a Vision Sensor usage

RE16 disallows additional electronics. Using a phone in the above described fashion is creating a user-programmable device and falls under the guidance of RE16. Vision Cameras cannot be user-programmable devices.

(Asked by 24346 answer published at October 10th 2023)

Q105 Intel T265 request

Q:

My team and many others have spent a lot of effort creating software based on Intel T265, not to mention the cost of acquiring it. Please note that although T265 is stereoscopic, it is not used for vision at all. Teams use the estimated position it provides that s calculated by its internal algorithms that combine its camera views and its IMU.

In our view it is essentially a alternate for dead wheel odometry. We graciously request it be allowed as in previous years.

A:

Game Manual Part 1 is the definitive answer as to the allowed use of cameras, either as Vision Cameras or as Vision Sensors. Both usages are limited to a single image sensor. Vision Cameras are additionally limited to provide image/video streams only

As such, the Intel T265 camera is not legal for use as it fails the image sensor limitation and provides other than just image/video stream data.

(Asked by 4327 answer published at October 18th 2023)

Q123 I2C to SPI protocol converter legality

Q:

Is this COTS I2C to SPI converter legal as per RE11.f? https://www.mikroe.com/i2c-to-spi-click A legal sensor with an SPI interface would be connected to the converter and the converter would be connected only to the I2C port of a Control or Expansion Hub.

A:

Yes, this I2C to SPI converter is an example of the types of protocol converters allowed by RE11.f (Asked by 21028 answer published at October 18th 2023)

Q132 How to set camera exposure

Q:

How do you use the ExposureControl classes with the Camera now that Vuforia has been removed from the Library?

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

26/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

This is not a rule clarification question, but a technical support question. As such, this question should be asked on

the FTC-Community forums (https://ftc-community.firstinspires.org) where the FIRST Tech Challenge engineering staff and community members are ready to take your questions.

(Asked by 16760 answer published at November 2nd 2023)

Q136 Voltage Sensor

Q:

Are digital voltmeters allowed? (This is the one we have been using:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B086RHJ95R/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1).

A:

The referenced voltage sensor is not allowed because it is not powered by a REV Expansion Hub or REV Control Hub via analog, digital, encoder, or I2C ports as required by rule RE05.c in Game Manual Part 2.

(Asked by 14840 answer published at October 26th 2023)

Q148 Container for driver control system

Q:

Last year at the district championship, a referee warned our team that our driver control box limited the screen view for refereees. We would appreciate a clarification on how much should be visible to the referee. Our container is a “treasure box” which is part of our team’s pirate costume theme. Currently, the treasure box surrounds the driver station on 4 sides plus the bottom, with walls extending to about midway up the REV driver station. Photo link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ro1

A:

The driver control box as it is currently configured is not legal. The current design blocks the view of the field and when opened has a possibility of extending into the field. The box can be made acceptable if the lid were removed completely rather than hinged.

(Asked by 4924 answer published at November 9th 2023)

Q153 Is using a laser mouse sensor for odometry

legal?

Q:

Our team is wondering if it's legal to use a laser mouse sensor with SPI protocol(like PMW3389 from https://www.tindie.com/products/citizenjoe/pmw3389-motion-sensor/) using a laser, allowed by RE12c and connected to an I2C port on the REV control hub via I2C to SPI bridge(like https://www.mikroe.com/i2c-to-spi-click), because we can't connect the sensor to the hub via USB as it seems it's restricted by RE11a.

A:

Yes, as long as the laser module complies with all applicable rules (i.e. RE12.c) and all protocol converters comply with sensor rules (i.e. RE11.f)

(Asked by 22042 answer published at October 31st 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

27/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q159 Question on Digital Break Beam Input Sensors

Q:

Can you confirm that the following sensor would be legal. https://www.adafruit.com/product/2168 Its an optical break beam sensor we would like to connect to a digital input on the control hub, can function on either 3.3V or 5V

(We understand that for 5V you need Logic Level Converter)

A:

In general, it is not possible for us to rule on the legality of all potential sensors. When determining the legality of a particular sensor, apply the constraints imposed by RE11 as a guide to legality.

In this particular case, the "sensor" you are asking about is in two distinct parts; an IR LED emitter and a IR

detector.

As long as the IR emitter is connected and powered in accordance with RE12 and the IR detector meets the constraints of RE11, the combination would be allowed

(Asked by 9225 answer published at November 8th 2023)

Q162 Alternate level shifter

Q:

The Rev level shifters were made for motor encoders and are not connectorized in a way that's easy for other uses. Since use of the 5V Aux port is dis-allowed for sensors, would this equivalent level shifter be considered legal? https://www.adafruit.com/product/5649

A:

Yes. This is an example of the types of level-shifters allowed by RE14.j

(Asked by 6055 answer published at November 15th 2023)

Q169 Clarification of answer to Q141 - sharing of

GND and 3.3v wires.

Q:

Q141 says "No sharing of GND or 3.3v wiring." (full stop), which inspectors or officials could read more broadly than we think is intended. We seek to clarify Q141's answer. The analog/digital ports are designed to support two sensor inputs per physical port, e.g. using a REV-31-1386 sensor splitter cable. Q1: Can two or more sensors connected to a common digital/analog physical port share its GND/3.3v wires? Q2: Can multiple I2C devices sharing a common I2C port (bus) share its GND/3.3v wires?

A:

Q141 (/qa/141) was meant to clarify that the power/ground bus used by sensors/pathways to provide signals should be scoped to the ports/connectors that provided it. For example, Digital Connector 0/1 on the Control Hub provides a power/ground plane intended to be used to power sensors/pathways to provide a signal for Digital Channel 0 and/or Digital Channel 1 - not for a device/pathway providing signal to Digital Channel 2 nor for Analog Channel 0, and certainly not for powering an I2C device chain.

(Asked by 7172 answer published at November 8th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

28/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q199 Is it legal to use an inline USB isolator to

prevent ESD problems with the Logitech C270

Q:

We continue to have control hub crashing issues due to ESD when the Logitech camera is plugged into any of the usb ports. we've identified that it only crashes when the robot makes metal connection with the field elements, and only when the usb camera is connected. Is it legal to use an inline USB isolator such as an ADUM3160?

A:

Yes. This is an example of the types of USB surge protectors allowed by RE14.a.

(Asked by 14670 answer published at November 28th 2023)

Q215 Are we allowed to use Logitech 920 camera

with the mount that comes attached to it?

Q:

Are we allowed to use the Logitech 920 Camera, with the mount that comes attached to it out-of-the-box, as an FTC-legal vision camera or do we need to somehow remove the included camera mount?

A:

The camera may be used with the attached mount. Teams are not required to remove it.

(Asked by 48 answer published at December 4th 2023)

Q234 Driver station android device

Q:

Android devices/phones listed in the legal parts list are pretty old Motorola models. Are we allowed to use a newer Motorola G model as our driver station Android device?

A:

The only legal Android devices/phones are enumerated in RE07, as long as they meet the requirements of RS03.

No other Android devices/phones are allowed.

There are a lot of challenges with trying to support general Android smartphones, especially since Android isn't a standard across the industry and instead each manufacturer forks and manages their own "flavor" of each version of Android. These different "flavors" of Android can have different behaviors regarding Wi-Fi management, permissions management, lifetime and update schedules, and other things that cause great hardships in terms of application and device support especially for remotely controlling robots. The REV Driver Hub is intended to be our long-term Android support device and is the direct replacement for COTS Android smartphones.

(Asked by 23216 answer published at December 14th 2023)

Q257 Legality of navX2 MXP and navX2-Micro

Navigation Sensors

Q:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

29/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Are either the navX2-Micro Navigation Sensor (https://www.andymark.com/products/navx2-micro-navigation-sensor) or the navX2 MXP Navigation Sensor (https://www.andymark.com/products/navx2-mxp-robotics-navigation-sensor) legal?

A:

Compatible external I2C IMU sensors such as the navX2-micro are legal per RE11.a. Be aware that the navX2

MXP is designed specifically to be used as an I/O expansion port for the FIRST Robotics Competition roboRIO

controller incorporating a navX2 IMU; the navX2 MXP may not be directly compatible with the REV Control Hub or REV Expansion Hub.

(Asked by 11329 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q260 Is the TFmini Plus laser sensor from Benewake

legal？

Q:

The TFmini Plus laser sensor from Benewake, marked with 'Exempt' optical characteristics, which are stricter and safer than Class I standards, is also compliant with RE11. Is it legal in this season? the produce url：

https://en.benewake.com/DataDownload/index.aspx?pid=20&lcid=23

A:

Yes. IEC/EN 62471 "Exempt" and IEC/EN 60825-1 "Class 1" are both acceptable and equivalent standards for RE11.

(Asked by 19961 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q275 REV Through Bore Encoder Repair

Q:

Can the broken casing of my REV Through Bore Encoder be repaired using 3D printing? Is it feasible to use the original manufacturer's CAD to print or design a new casing? I will design a new casing for it but will not modify the internal circuitry. This is an encoder with expensive shipping costs, so we want to repair it.

A:

Repairing the casing (including using 3D printing) is allowed. Care should be taken not to modify any of the internal circuitry and and the repairs should not obscure/hide what the sensor is so that inspectors can easily identify that it is a sensor/encoder.

You should also be prepared to explain the process you went through to the robot inspectors at your events.

(Asked by 17257 answer published at January 16th 2024)

Q282 Can I use control system signals to control a

Blinkin LED Driver that is powered by a USB

Q:

Can I use control system signals to control a Blinkin LED Driver that is powered by a USB battery pack?

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

30/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Yes. In general most COTS LED controlling interface modules, like the REV Blinkin LED Driver, internally isolate the power and the control signals so that they can safely be powered and controlled by different sources. When choosing how to power your LED sources (per RE12.f) and optionally control them (per RE12.d and RE12.e), keep in mind that if using external power sources those external power sources must stay isolated from internal robot power sources. If you're ever unsure, either ask (https://ftc-community.firstinspires.org/) or find another way.

(Asked by 17257 answer published at January 18th 2024)

Q292 Limelight Smart Camera FTC legal?

Q:

Is the Limelight camera FTC legal? We purchased a Limelight for our FRC bot, but then we got to wondering if...

We checked the Legal and Illegal parts list and found no answer. We checked Chief Delphi and there are many different and conflicting answers. So FIRST, what's the official answer? Thank you, ROBOhana #16764

A:

No, the LimeLight Vision Camera is not legal for use in 2023-2024 competition season. User-Programmable devices, including Vision Cameras and Vision Sensors, are not allowed.

(Asked by 16764 answer published at February 1st 2024)

Q298 Oak-1 Lite USB C connection

Q:

The Legal and Illegal Parts list shows the Oak-1 Lite in the Vision Sensor category. I want to confirm that using the Oak-1 Lite along with a Vision Camera such as the Logitech C270 is allowed. Out of the box the Oak-1 Lite connects using a USB C connection. Therefore, during inspection it would appear as if there are two 'usb cameras'

plugged in. If the Oak USB C connection is allowed, I hope this question sets precedent for inspectors to know that not all vision sensors connect via I2C.

A:

No, the Oak-1 Lite Camera is not legal for use in 2023-2024 competition season. User-Programmable devices, including Vision Cameras and Vision Sensors, are not allowed.

(Asked by 19367 answer published at February 1st 2024)

Q314 Simple LED lights

Q:

Confirming that simple straw-hat LEDs are again acceptable for use this year (they were last year) when used with a passive current limiting resistor as recommended by the supplier. The LED’s use would follow <RE12>.

A:

Under current rules, this combination of a resistor with an LED would be considered as a custom circuit and not allowed per RE16

(Asked by 10138 answer published at February 8th 2024)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

31/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q325 Using Motor Port to Power Control/Expansion

Hub

Q:

The male XT30 connector on my Control Hub is not making a reliable connection any more. I read on an online forum a recommendation to instead use an empty motor port - instead of plugging into the XT30 to power my Control Hub, I could cut/splice a power and motor cable together to instead provide power directly into a motor port to power my Hub. Is this safe/legal?

A:

Absolutely not. Doing so can irreversibly damage your Control Hub and can provide an overall unsafe 12V power system on the robot. The only safe and legal way to power the Control Hub or Expansion Hub is through the XT30

ports on the hubs. For recommendations and a more thorough explanation, see this ftc-community forum post

(https://ftc-community.firstinspires.org/t/using-motor-port-to-power-control-expansion-hub/1026).

(Asked by 12789 answer published at February 8th 2024)

Q327 Follow up to Q314 - Permissibility of passive

components

Q:

Following up to Q314: 1. Can the use of an LED be considered a sensor since the use of added passives is permitted by RE11.c (and some sensors can explicitly be used as light sources)? 2. Can direct wired LEDs with integrated resistors be used (these seem limited to 12V selection)? This puts us into a bind requiring adding Spark-mini's for something that was permitted last year under similar game manual wording. Hoping the intent is clear (simple indicators). Happy to discuss in forum too.

A:

A1) No. Sensors can have integrated LEDs (e.g. beam-break sensors discussed in Q159 (/qa/159) ), but LEDs cannot alone be considered sensors.

A2) Yes, such products (https://www.revrobotics.com/rev-31-2010/) are commonly used

(https://www.adafruit.com/product/1757).

(Asked by 10138 answer published at February 14th 2024)

Q329 Xbox Elite Series 2

Q:

Can you clarify if the Xbox Elite Series 2 controller is legal? It's not specifically listed in the legal parts list, but could fall under the XBox 360 listed. This one is bluetooth capable, but we would use it via a wire instead of bluetooth.

A:

No, the Xbox 360 Wired Controller is the only Xbox branded controller currently supported.

(Asked by 21485 answer published at February 14th 2024)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

32/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q345 Is the camouflage green PS4 controller

allowed?

Q:

On GM1-DS03 it says Sony DualShock 4 Wireless Controller for PS4 (ASIN # B01LWVX2RG) is legal. This ASIN

refer to the jet black color. However, we have a Green Camouflage color with a different ASIN number (ASIN #

B01MTKXP31). Is it legal for using it for competition?

https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1Z5pcrXVh2vci3vFKjhvJsF0q3CRVpCBg

A:

Yes. The Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) provided is merely a helpful breadcrumb to help you source a legal gamepad, and is not specifically a required identifier. The last line of DS03 provides the definitive answer to your question, "Different color gamepads are allowed provided they are the same model as the allowed gamepad."

(Asked by 6436 answer published at March 7th 2024)

Traditional and Remote – Robot Software

Rules

Q335 OpMode Annotation Requirement?

Q:

We program in Blocks, and having a SINGLE OpMode program that provides Autonomous and Driver Control

"behaviors" is more beneficial than multiple different OpModes (gamepad is used to select behavior during INIT). If our OpMode is annotated as a Teleop OpMode, we can still enable the 30-second autonomous timer using the timer selector switch, but the timer is not enabled by default. At our tournament, it was questioned if this is okay. Is an OpMode used in Auto required to be annotated as such?

A:

There is no requirement that an autonomous opmode be annotated in the code as autonomous.

There is a requirement that the 30-second timer be enabled for robots that are going to run an autonomous opmode during the autonomous period.

Teams that do not annotate their autonomous opmodes should make sure to enable the 30-second timer for each match they participate in.

(Asked by 12789 answer published at February 29th 2024)

Q344 Can an OpMode save things in a static context

during pre-match?

Q:

Can the drive team, before bringing the robot into the playing field, run a teleop OpMode that saves some configuration-info into a static context (f.e. boolean for red/blue alliance), and then bringing the robot into the field (without switching it off) and continuing the regular steps - choosing the required autonomous Opmode and https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

33/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

running the init and so on...? (The intention for this is to create some setup parameters that the autonomous opmode will use)

A:

Teams should not be transporting a powered robot. It's not directly declared as illegal to do so, but it is a safety risk and thus the safety rules demand the robot to be off.

If teams want to store setup parameters, they should consider writing/reading files on the Control Hub filesystem.

There's even an example program that uses custom myBlocks written in Java that makes reading and writing the filesystem accessible to blocks users here:

https://ftc-docs.firstinspires.org/en/latest/programming_resources/shared/myblocks/rw_example/rw-example.html

(https://ftc-docs.firstinspires.org/en/latest/programming_resources/shared/myblocks/rw_example/rw-example.html)

(Asked by 23422 answer published at March 7th 2024)

Traditional – Pre-match Setup

Q7 Pixel stack orientation on location line

Q:

Will the pixels be placed on the pixel locations stripes in a known orientation such as flat against the wall or is the orientation random?

A:

Based on the Field Reset guide located in the Game and Season Information page

(https://www.firstinspires.org/resource-library/ftc/game-and-season-info (https://www.firstinspires.org/resource-

library/ftc/game-and-season-info)), "Each stack of 5 Pixels is centered from side to side on each of the white tape lines on the audience side of the field. The Pixels should be touching the field perimeter wall". There is no specification of orientation both collectively and individually in each stack. In other words, Pixels can be in any setup as long as they are each touching the field perimeter wall. Teams should design their intake mechanisms accordingly.

(Asked by 5484 answer published at September 19th 2023)

Q10 Pre-Match configuration - drone storage

Q:

4.4.1 specifies pixel storage but says nothing about drone storage. Are there any constraints on the quantity or starting location/configuration of drones in excess of the one pre loaded prior to the start?

A:

Drive Teams are allowed to bring one (1) Drone to the competition Playing Field for a Match. The Drone is either Pre-Loaded or placed into their Alliance's Pixel Storage area during pre- Match set up.

(Asked by 23410 answer published at September 18th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

34/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q37 Will TGE (Team Prop) orientation be maintained

during randomization?

Q:

GM2 section 4.4.1(4)(c) says that field personnel will move the Randomization Object to the chosen Spike Mark.

For teams using TGE (Team Props), will the field personnel attempt to maintain the orientation of the TGE as placed on the field by the Drive Team, or should teams anticipate that the TGE orientation will change as a result of randomization?

A:

Yes, field personnel will strive to maintain the Team Prop's orientation when it is repositioned to a different Spike Mark.

Randomization relocation is not a precision activity, Teams should design their Team Prop detection system to tolerate some change in orientation when it is relocated. The Drive Team should immediately alert field personnel if there is a significant change in the Team Prop's orientation. Using the referee question box after the Match ends to alert the Head Referee about a change in Team Prop orientation during randomization is too late to affect any Match outcome and it is not a justification to replay a Match.

(Asked by 7172 answer published at September 22nd 2023)

Q130 Motors moving during initialization

Q:

RG02 mentions that servos can move during initialization to fit within the sizing limit. Q1: What about motors? If our robot is too large before initialization, can our initialization routine power motors to make the robot fit? Q2: If so, can the motors stay powered/stalling while the robot size is measured?

A:

A1: Yes, provided that the motors do not stall and the same initialization process is used when setting up the Robot for a Match.

A2: No, stalling a DC motor for an extended period of time such as Pre- Match set up and inspection risks damaging the motor (most motors rely on spinning to ensure proper cooling) and consumes a significant amount stored energy from the Robot's main battery. More importantly, stalled motors can create smoke and noxious gases as well as generate extreme heat within the motor that can lead to fire (depending on the motor and materials surrounding the motor).

(Asked by 18253 answer published at October 24th 2023)

Q138 Follow Up to Q130

Q:

We wanted to confirm that the answer to 2) is a change from last year’s response, which said stalling was allowed.

For clarification, we wanted to pose another case: during initialization (both during inspection & pre-game) could we have the motors that power our lift move so that the lift is raised to a specific height? In this instance, the motor is not stalling: it is running to a position and then holding that position, the same way a servo holds its position while the robot is initialized.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

35/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

Motors and servos "hold position" very differently. Motors with a load applied to their motor shaft can "hold position" through mechanical friction (via a gearbox/gear train) or through stalling. Servos with a load applied to their splines generally only "hold position" through stalling. If the motor can "hold position" even when power is no longer being applied to the motor, then that is legal. If power must be applied to the motor to hold position, it's not legal.

(Asked by 18253 answer published at October 25th 2023)

Q156 Are Tile interlocking tabs considered in?

Q:

Do the interlocking teeth on the edge of a foam tile count as part of the tile for the purposes of starting location (i.e, if a robots wheel is on the jagged edge of a tile, would they be considered "Completely In Tile")?

A:

No, a Robot that is In a Tile's interlocking teeth is In more than one Tile. The Pre-Match Robot set up requirement is that the Robot is Completely In only one (1) of the required Tiles. See section 4.4.1 item #3 in Game Manual Part 2 for all of the Pre-Match Robot set up requirements.

(Asked by 16750 answer published at November 1st 2023)

Q165 Autonomous Initialization Routine gamepad

control

Q:

During pre-match robot setup, is it legal to include code to enable gamepad functionality during the autonomous initialization routine? For example, is it allowed to have the gamepad buttons control a servo to open and close a gripper to preload pixels before the referee signals that pre-match set up is complete.

A:

Yes, provided that the operation is performed safely and does not delay the start of a Match (G13.e).

(Asked by 23414 answer published at November 8th 2023)

Q214 Autonomous Setup

Q:

As long as it doesn't delay the game, can the drive team use one of the pre-loaded pixels to space the robot off the tile teeth, then place it in the robot before initialization?

A:

No, per Rule G15, you may not use a Pixel to align the Robot. Pixels are not a legal component of the Robot.

(Asked by 14840 answer published at November 30th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

36/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q220 Folding drone wings in launcher

Q:

Can the drone wings be folded against the fuselage when loaded into the robot's launcher?

A:

The act of folding a Drone's wings against the fuselage when it is loaded into the Robot's launcher does not violate any gameplay rules. The concern is that a Launched Drone with folded wings may not comply with rule GS11.f and therefore, would not be eligible to earn points for the Drone Launch achievement.

A Launched Drone must match the configuration that passed inspection per rule GS11.f. Since a Drone with wings folded against the fuselage would not pass inspection, the wings would need to open when released by the Robot.

If the Drone returns to its legal inspection configuration (i.e, the wings are open/deployed) as it separates from the Robot, the Drone described in the question is eligible to earn points for the the Drone Launching achievement.

(Asked by 18505 answer published at December 5th 2023)

Q240 More clarification to Q228 on swapping

Q:

I'm sorry, the question posed wasn't what was meant to be asked. The question is, can FIRST consider the Robots (not the backdrops) swapping sides between elimination matches from Red to Blue to ensure that the field is not an advantage to one team or the other. Much like Football. RED in Match 1, is BLUE in Match 2. The backdrops can definitely affect gameplay this year, both position and deformity. There is a time period between matches where the robots are removed from the field.

A:

No, the scoring system does not support Teams/Robots swapping Alliances.

Per Q228 (/qa/228) , a Backdrop with a game changing shortcoming such as significant damage or incorrect assembly should be repaired or replaced before playing the next Match. A "small inwards bow" in a Backdrop Scoring Area is likely to be viewed by the Head Referee as normal variation caused by manufacturing and assembly tolerances that does not require repair or replacement for Match play to continue.

(Asked by 9225 answer published at December 18th 2023)

Q261 Use of Gamepad for Autonomous Selection

Post Init Phase Pre Randomization Phase

Q:

We are aware of the restrictions of touching the gamepad during the autonomous phase. However, this year we are attempting to use a color recognition system for autonomous, and would like to be able to select our alliance color without the need for multiple duplicate OpModes. We are wondering if it is possible to use the gamepad's buttons for color selection AFTER robot initialization, but BEFORE the ref's randomization period. So far we haven't found any specific rules for or against this.

A:

Yes.

Note: See the related question Q165 (/qa/165) .

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

37/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

(Asked by 4711 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q273 Clarification on the robot touching the playing

field wall during pre-match set up.

Q:

Need clarification on 4.4.1 3 a iii: Drive Teams must place their Robot, in any orientation, touching the Playing Field Wall adjacent to their Alliance Station. If a robot has a part that extends towards the wall and is higher than the wall in manner that would cross the vertical plane of the wall, would it be considered touching the wall? Or should there be a part of the robot physically touching the wall?

A:

The Robot is required to make contact with the Playing Field Wall during pre-match set up. The Robot set up described in this scenario is not allowed.

Note: Intentional Robot extension Outside the Playing Field Perimeter for pre- Match setup is not allowed per the orange box in rule S02.

(Asked by 4327 answer published at January 11th 2024)

Q276 Tethered Tape Measure as alignment tool:

legal?

Q:

Our team is considering using a tape measure attached with string to align the robot. Q1: Is this legal if the tape measure extends outside the 18 inch limits? Rule G14 indicates that "before the start of the match...each robot may not exceed...18 inches", but rule G15 indicates that we may align with "components...that CAN BE RESET TO

BE within the 18 inch cube". Which is correct/applies here? Q2: Is this legal if the tape measure does not ever extend outside the 18 inch limit?

A:

A1: Yes, the tape measure may extend outside the 18 inch (45.72 cm) Robot starting size constraint during pre-Match setup. Keep in mind that Robot set up may not delay Match start, interfere with any other Team's set up, or the activities of any of the field personnel.

Rule G14 is intended to apply upon the completion of Drive Team's Robot set up process.

Rule G15 applies to the actions by the Drive Team to perform their Robot pre- Match set up.

A2: Yes.

(Asked by 12087 answer published at January 16th 2024)

Q277 Testing vision systems by placing Team Prop

on tape lines

Q:

To make sure our camera can see all three team prop positions, we would like to try placing it on each of the three tape lines and making sure the robot detects it. Assuming this does not cause an excessive delay of game, is it https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

38/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

legal?

A:

Yes, as long as the movement does not delay Match start, interfere with any other Team's set up, or the activities of any of the field personnel.

(Asked by 12087 answer published at January 16th 2024)

Q323 Drone Starting Position

Q:

Is the drone allowed to start a match (while on the robot) with its tip on top of the playing field wall during set up initialization (while it is loaded onto the launching mechanism)?

A:

Yes, provided that the Drone does not extend Outside the Playing Field Perimeter per the orange box in rule S02.

Note: See the definitions of Playing Field Perimeter and Outside for a full understanding of how to apply rule S02

to this Robot set up scenario.

(Asked by 18766 answer published at February 7th 2024)

Traditional – All Match Period Gameplay

Q1 Drones and backdrop

Q:

When having a discussion of the rules about the backdrop and drones. Several students questioned what would happen if a drone went back and hit the backdrop and knocked down pixels of the opposite alliance. Would there be a penalty for the drone hitting the backdrop.

A:

The Pixel descoring rule, GS04, applies to this gameplay scenario. A Minor Penalty will be assessed for each Pixel descored from the opposing Alliance's Backdrop.

(Asked by 130 answer published at September 18th 2023)

Q2 Spitting out a third pixel

Q:

Per rule <GS05> robots can’t possess/control more than 2 pixels, and doing so results in a minor penalty for each additional pixel as well as another minor penalty after every 5 seconds. Q1: We were wondering if there is an exception to be made for intaking a 3rd pixel and immediately spitting it back out. Q2: Additionally, if such an exception is the case, are there limitations on our actions while the 3rd pixel is in our possession/control? (ex.

driving)

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

39/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A1: Yes there is an exception. The Robot in this scenario is unlikely to be Penalized for Controlling too many Pixels. The referee should view the Robot's actions as being both Inadvertent and Inconsequential and not call a rule GS05 Penalty as allowed by rule G10.

A2: Yes, for this scenario, there are limitations to being excused for a rule GS05 Penalty. The Robot is unlikely to receive a rule GS05 Penalty if the Robot satisfies the following two conditions: 1) It ejects the extra Pixel in a reasonable amount of time and; 2) It refrains from playing the game while Controlling the extra Pixel. Two examples of playing the game are: a) Traveling to a different location and; b) Placing a Pixel In a Scoring Area. If the Robot's actions are clearly focused on removing the extra Pixel and not playing other aspects of the game, it is highly unlikely that it will receive a GS05 *Penalty".

(Asked by 19458 answer published at September 18th 2023)

Q3 GS06 Rigging clarification

Q:

Q1: Are the yellow tubes on the truss considered rigging or just the red / blue tubes? Q2: The rule <GS06> states:

“There is a limit of one (1) Supported Robot per Rigging.” Is this per tube, or the entire Truss? Q3: Asked another way, is it possible for two alliance robots to hang from the Truss - each on a different alliance colored tube?

A:

A1: The red and blue pipes are the Rigging. The yellow pipes are not Rigging. See illustration C-4 in Appendix C of Game Manual Part 2.

A2: The rule GS06.c limitation is per tube. There are four (4) Alliance Specific Riggings, two (2) red and two (2) blue as stated in the definition of Rigging in the game definitions section (4.3) of Game Manual Part 2.

A3: Yes.

(Asked by 20079 answer published at September 18th 2023)

Q5 <GS05> line c) Control/Possession limit

exceptions:

Q:

<GS05> line c): i. Knocking over a stack ... Pixels is allowed. ii. Inadvertent and Inconsequential movement of a pre-set stack of unscored Pixels is allowed. Moving the stack Completely Off the tape is considered consequential.

iii. Plowing through ... is allowed. Q1: Does the "Moving the stack Completely Off the tape" apply to the entire stack, or is a single pixel on the stack able to be moved past the tape edge? Q2: If knocking over, can more than one pixel?

A:

The intent of Rule GS05.c.(i&ii) is to allow reasonable Robot interaction with a Pixel stack without violating the Pixel Control/Possession limits described in rule GS05.a. The Rule GS05.c.i exception is for Pixel(s) knocked off of a stack and onto the Playing Field Floor. The Rule GS05c.ii exception is for the movement of three (3) or more of the pre-set stacked Pixels as a group that stay On the white tape line.

A1: Penalizing the movement of the Pixel stack applies when three (3) or more stacked Pixels are moved all together Off of the white tape line. Moving a "single Pixel from the stack past the tape edge" is allowed because it is less than the two (2) Pixel Controller/Possession limit described in rule GS05.a.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

40/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A2: Yes, the rule GS05.c.i exemption applies to any number of Pixels knocked off of the stack onto the Playing Field Floor. The knocked off Pixels are not subject to rule GS05.a constraints, even if they come to rest Off of the white tape line.

Bonus Information: Pixels in the pre-set stacks can't be Propelled per rule GS10.

(Asked by 20079 answer published at September 18th 2023)

Q13 GS05 - Robot Control/Possession Limits for

Pixels

Q:

Please explain if these scenarios will be penalized: Q1: Robot knocks a pixel stack down (GS05.c.i). These pixels are such that they are no longer stacked and are scattered singles. Q2: Robot pushes 3/4/5 of the knocked down pixels into the backstage (GS05.c.iii). Q3: The restriction seems to be, a robot can not move a stack of 3 or more pixels from the white line. Q4: Scattered / knocked off pixels can be plowed. Is that accurate?

A:

A1: No Penalty. Rule GS05.c.i allows a Robot to knock over a stack of unscored Pixels.

A2: The Robot will be penalized for violating rule GS05.a because it is Controlling more than two (2) Pixels. The Pixels in this scenario are Herded, a form of Control, by the Robot because the Pixels are pushed to a desired location that gains a strategic advantage beyond the Robot moving around the Playing Field. The Pixels in this scenario do not qualify for the rule GS05.c.iii exception for Plowing. See the definitions of " Herding" and " Plowing"

in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2 to fully understand the difference between these game-specific terms.

A3: Correct, a Robot will be penalized for moving a stack of three (3) or more Pixels Off of the white tape line per rules GS05.a and GS05c.ii.

A4: Yes, any quantity of "scattered/knocked off Pixels" can be Plowed per rule GS05.c.iii. See the definition of

" Plowing" in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2 to gain an understanding of how to apply this game-specific term.

(Asked by 21816 answer published at September 19th 2023)

Q14 Launching Pixels

Q:

Launching is defined as "Propelling Game Elements through the air or water above the Playing Field Floor." Q1: Are Pixels considered launched if they stay in contact with the floor? Q2: In other words, can be slid along the floor and not be considered Launched and if so, are there any constraints in how far they can go?

A:

An understanding of the game-specific defined terms " Propel/Propelling", " Launch/Launching", and " Slide/Sliding"

found in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2 is necessary to fully understand Q1, Q2, and their answers. Please take a moment to review these definitions before proceeding.

The "bonus information" following answers A1 and A2 addresses a related gameplay scenario that complements Q1 and Q2.

A1: No, a Pixel that is "in contact with the floor" does not satisfy the definition of " Launched" in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

41/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A2: A Pixel "slid along the floor" does not satisfy the definition of " Launched" because the Pixel remains in contact with the "Playing Field Floor".

Bonus Information: Rule GS10 states that Pixels may not be Propelled. Each violation of this rule results in a Minor Penalty. To understand how to apply rule GS10 to Pixels that are Slid by a Robot, we need to review the definitions of " Sliding" and " Propelling".

" Sliding" is defined as Propelling Game Elements along the Playing Field Floor.

" Propelling" is giving Game Elements enough force such that they move independent of contact with the Robot or Human Player. Launching, Rolling, and Sliding are forms of Propelling.

Since " Sliding" is a form of " Propelling", a Robot causing a Pixel to Slide violates rule GS10.

(Asked by 15259 answer published at September 19th 2023)

Q20 Is it legal to intake 2 pixels while the robot is

touching other pixels on a stack

Q:

Is it legal to intake 2 pixels, while a robot's other parts (e.g. a beam) are touching other pixels on the pixel stack?

A:

Yes, the Robot's actions are legal, provided that the Robot does not already Possess or Control any Pixels when it

"intakes 2 Pixels."

(Asked by 21229 answer published at September 20th 2023)

Q23 Pixel pickup and dropoff to alliance robot?

Q:

Can a robot pick up pixels in the wing and then drop the pixels in tile row 3 or 4 for another robot to pick up and place on the backdrop?

A:

Yes, the Robot's actions do not violate any gameplay rules.

(Asked by 14687 answer published at September 20th 2023)

Q24 Are stacked pixels pinned to the playing field

wall considered controlled/possessed?

Q:

Are stacked pixels pinned against the playing field wall considered controlled/possessed by the robot?

A:

No.

(Asked by 19043 answer published at September 20th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

42/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q26 Rule GS05.c.i clarification

Q:

<GS05> c) i. Knocking over a stack of unscored Pixels is allowed. Q1: Is knocking over more than one stack allowed? Q2: Is it also allowed to knock over the stacks in the opposing Alliance’s half of the Playing Field? Q3: What is the penalty for knocking over more than one stack (if applicable)?

A:

A1: Yes.

A2: Yes this action is allowed during the Driver-Controlled Period. Knocking over a Pixel stack in the opposing Alliance's half of the Playing Field during the Autonomous Period violates rule GS03.

A3: No penalty during the Driver-Controlled Period". During the Autonomous Period , each instance of knocking over a Pixel stack that affects an opposing Alliance Robot during the Autonomous Period* is penalized per rule GS03.

Note: The answers were updated on 09/21/2023.

(Asked by 21028 answer published at September 20th 2023)

Q42 Pixel moving which is on the floor and not used

by alliance.

Q:

Action 1. Red alliance robot picks up a pixel from their side of the field. Action 2. Moving it towards their backdrop/backstage, they drop the pixel outside a scoring area in the blue alliance side of field, while on the way.

Q1: Can a blue alliance robot pickup the pixel and use it for their advantage? Q2: This is not autonomous interference? Q3: Does it incur any penalty?

A:

A1: Yes. During the Autonomous Period it is a non-scored Pixel located in their Alliance's half of the Playing Field.

During the Driver-Controlled Period it is available to a Robot on any Alliance because it is not In a Scoring Area or Wing, provided that no other rule is violated (for example, GS05 and GS08 to name a few).

Keep in mind that during the Autonomous Period, Robots may only use its own Pre-Loaded Pixels to earn Randomization Task points per section 4.4.2 item 2.b in Game Manual Part 2.

A2: The red Alliance violates rule GS03 each time the dropped Pixel disrupts a blue Alliance Robot during the Autonomous Period or if the red Alliance Robot directly Interferes with an opposing Alliance Robot that is in its own Alliance's half of the Playing Field. The blue Alliance Robots are not at risk for violating the Autonomous Interference rule, provided that they remain on their Alliance's half of the Playing Field.

A3: See A2.

(Asked by 21816 answer published at September 23rd 2023)

Q47 Moving pixels from spike marks

Q:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

43/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q1: If the purple pixel is placed on the spike mark in the scoring position, but due to movement of robots doing other tasks, if it moves the pixel from the spike mark (alliance robot or opponent robot), how does the scoring work? Q2: If the achievement score is determined right after autonomous, in the driver-controlled period, can we use that spike mark pixel for badkrop/backstage scoring purpose?

A:

A1: Autonomous Period tasks are Scored at Rest per section 4.4.2 in Game Manual Part 2. " Scored at Rest" is defined in section 4.3 in Game Manual Part 2. Applying the definition to the Pixel placed on the Spike Mark, the Pixel is considered to be Scored if it is On the designated (correct) Spike Mark when the entire field has come to rest after the Autonomous Period ends.

In the Q1 scenario, the purple Pixel is not On the correct Spike Mark, therefore, the Pixel's Score value is zero.

There is no Penalty if a Robot descores its own Alliance's Pixel. Rule GS03 is violated If an opposing Alliance Robot descores the Spike Mark Pixel.

A2: Yes.

(Asked by 21816 answer published at September 23rd 2023)

Q50 Followup Q13

Q:

I am still not clear on Q13, as well as the how to apply rule GS05 in the game manual part 2. 1) GS05c. iii. -

Plowing through any quantity of Scoring Elements is allowed. 2) GS05a. - Controlling or Possessing more than the allowed quantity of Scoring Elements is an immediate Minor Penalty. I am looking for one example where plowing a robot through 3/4/5 elements does not violate rule GS05a, or does not belong to herding. I am unable to understand the use of GS05.c.iii.

A:

Before proceeding with reading the following information, please review the game-specific definitions of the terms Control, Possess, Herding, and Plowing in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2. Applying the common or dictionary definitions of any game-specific term in section 4.3 may result in a misunderstanding of a scoring achievement requirement, rule, procedure, etc. Game-specific terms are easy to identify in the Game Manual because they have italics formatting and the first letter is capitalized. For example, the text " Control" has the correct formatting for a game-specific term. We strive to use this same formatting for defined terms contained in answers to gameplay questions in this forum.

Rule GS05.a limits the number of Pixels and Drones that a Robot can legally Control or Possess. This Team's question ( Q50 (/qa/50) ) asks for an example of where Plowing through 3/4/5 Pixels does not violate rule GS05.a.

The definition of Control specifically states that Plowing is not a form of Control. Therefore, all Plowing actions by a Robot do not violate the Scoring Element Control/Possession rule, GS05.a.

The second part of this Team's question asks for a Plowing scenario that is not Herding. Since Plowing actions and Herding actions are mutually exclusive, all Plowing actions are not Herding".

The following are gameplay examples that may be helpful:

Example 1: A Robot collects two Pixels from a Pixel stack. Since these are the only Pixels Possessed or Controlled by the Robot, rule GS05.a is not violated. The Robot drives directly through the Truss or Stage Door and stops In their Alliance's Backstage. Along the way to the Backstage, a stray Pixel on the Playing Field Floor is pushed by the Robot and it winds up In the Backstage. The Robot has now violated rule GS05.a because it Possesses two https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

44/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Pixels and it Controlled ( Herded) the stray Pixel for a total of three (3) Controlled Pixels. The stray Pixel was Herded because it was moved to a location that provided the Alliance a strategic advantage since it was Scored In the Backstage.

Example 2: Same as Example 1, except when the Robot encounters the stray Pixel, it pushes the stray Pixel for a short distance. The Drive Team quickly realizes that the Robot just started to Control too many Pixels. The Drive Team changes the Robot's direction of travel so that the Robot sheds the stray Pixel, leaving it behind on the Playing Field Floor while the Robot continues on its way to the Backstage. In this example, the stray Pixel was Plowed (i.e, it was not moved into a location that gave the Alliance a strategic advantage). Therefore, rule GS05.a is not violated.

If there is still uncertainty about how Controlling, Possessing, Herding, and Plowing apply to rule GS05, the Head Referee at your next competition will be happy to answer your questions during the Drivers Meeting.

Demonstrating gameplay scenarios on a Playing Field is an excellent way to gain understanding of how to apply rules to complex scenarios.

Pro Tip: Drive Teams have an obligation while driving their Robots around the Playing Field to avoid Controlling stray Pixels that would cause the Robot to violate rule GS05. In other words, Robots should maneuver around stray Pixels if their Herding would cause the Robot to exceed the allowed number of Controlled Pixels.

Warning: Deliberately placing Pixels in locations on the Playing Field Floor to use rule GS05.a constraints as a strategy to increase the difficulty for an opposing Alliance Robot to move around the Playing Field violates rule G29.

(Asked by 21816 answer published at September 23rd 2023)

Q57 Manipulation of pixels after being scored

Q:

According to Game Manual 2, specifically <GS05>, it is stated that pixels scored on the backdrop are not subject to the control/possession limit. Does this imply that an alliance can freely manipulate any number of pixels on their backdrop even after they have been scored, as long as these pixels maintain contact with the backdrop?

A:

Yes, provided that the Robot is not In Tile rows 1, 2, or 3 per rule GS08.d.

(Asked by 15342 answer published at September 24th 2023)

Q58 Rule G05 clarification

Q:

<G05> Robots or Scoring Elements that are eligible for two or more Scoring achievements earn points only for the highest value achievement. Q1: Is a Yellow Pixel placed On an Alliance’s designated Backdrop location eligible for both the 20 point randomization task and the 5 point placement task? Q2: Will the Yellow Pixel then earn 3 points at the end of the Driver-Controlled Period? Q3: Are there other scenarios where rule G05 would apply (except Drones In multiple Landing Zones and Navigating)?

A:

A1: The short answer is Yes.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

45/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

The yellow Pixel is in two Scoring Areas, On the Backdrop and In the Backstage. Applying rule G05, the Pixel's highest value achievement is for being On the Backdrop. During the Autonomous Period, all Pixels On the Backdrop earn five (5) points. The yellow Pixel has an additional Randomization Task scoring potential that is dependent upon its location On the Backdrop as described in section 4.4.2 item 2.b. The yellow Pixel may earn both the standard five (5) points for being On the Backdrop and the Randomization Task points for being in the location corresponding to the designated Spike Mark.

A2: Yes, if the yellow Pixel is On the Backdrop at the end of the Match.

A3: For the CENTERSTAGE game, rule G05 applies to: a) Pixels that are On the Backdrop and In the Backstage; b) Robots that are Suspended from the Rigging and are Parked In the Backstage; and c) Drones In two (2) Landing Zones.

Applying rule G05 to the Navigation scoring achievement during the Autonomous Period is not necessary because there is only one location based Scoring Area for the Robot during that Match Period.

(Asked by 21028 answer published at September 24th 2023)

Q60 <GS05> Clarification on pixel stack penalties

Q:

In the third part of Q13 and in <GS05>c.ii of the game manual, it is mentioned that it is a penalty to move a stack of more than 2 white pixels off the line. My question is how many penalties would this violation cause? Would it cause multiple minor penalties for each pixel more than 2 on the stack, (Ex. 3 penalties for moving a stack of 5), or just one minor penalty for the entire stack moving?

A:

Rule GS05.a is restated here with the answer to your question highlighted with bold formatting: " Robots may Control or Possess a maximum of two (2) Pixels and one (1) Drone at a time. Controlling or Possessing more than the allowed quantity of Scoring Elements is an immediate Minor Penalty for each Scoring Element above the limit plus an additional Minor Penalty per Scoring Element in excess of the limit for each 5-second interval that the situation continues."

If the Robot does not Control any Pixels just before it moves the Pixel stack Off the white tape line, the number of Minor Penalties is the quantity of Pixels in the stack minus two (2). For example, if there are five (5) Pixels in the stack, the Penalty is three (3) Minor Penalties for Controlling three (3) Pixels above the allowed quantity of two (2).

If the Robot continues to Control more than the allowed quantity of Pixels, an additional Minor Penalty for each Pixel over the allowed quantity of two (2) will be assessed every five (5) seconds that the Robot Controls more than two (2) Pixels.

(Asked by 19411 answer published at September 24th 2023)

Q88 Indirect Penalties

Q:

Rule G03 only mentions the case where an alliance forces another alliance to break a rule, but does not receive a penalty. Q1: What happens, for example, if a RED robot pushes/bumps a BLUE robot into the BLUE Backdrop, causing pixels to be descored? Does the RED robot receive penalties as if it were the one to directly descore the pixels? Q2: If the answer to Q1 is that the RED robot will receive penalties, how will it be determined if the RED

robot's actions are enough to warrant a penalty?

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

46/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A1: Yes, the red Alliance will receive one Minor Penalty for each affected Pixel, completed Mosaic, and Set Bonus.

For example, descoring two Pixels that are part of a completed Mosaic and a Set Bonus achievement. Receive four Minor Penalties as described below:

a) Two (2) descored Pixels = Two (2) Minor Penalties.

b) Two (2) Pixels from the same Mosaic = One (1) Minor Penalty.

c) One (1) or two (2) Pixels eliminating one (1) Set Line achievement = One (1) Minor Penalty.

A2: Any direct Robot contact initiated by the red Alliance Robot should be penalized if Pixels are descored.

Maneuvering close to an opposing Alliance Robot that is close to their Alliance's Backdrop and/or Backstage is a risky gameplay strategy that does not have an obvious strategic gameplay advantage other than to disrupt the opposing Alliance Robot. In the scenario described in the question, the referee should penalize the red Alliance Robot for violating the descoring rule GS04.

(Asked by 16232 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

Q91 Robot pushes team prop away from the spike

mark

Q:

Will there be a penalty if a robot pushes their alliance's team prop away from the spike mark during the autonomous or driver-controlled period?

A:

No.

(Asked by 23226 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

Q101 Clarification for Scoring on Backdrop

Q:

According to S02, intentional robot extension outside the playing field perimeter is prohibited and will earn a yellow card if contact is made with any object. Wouldn't this mean robots are not intentionally allowed to extend above the upper half of the backdrop (which is located outside the field perimeter) even to score, and risk earning a yellow card? Given that propelling pixels is illegal (GS10), wouldn't that make scoring on the upper half of the backdrop essentially impossible?

A:

Yes, Robot access to the entire Backdrop is necessary to fully play the game. When applying rule S02, the Playing Field Perimeter is extend outward to include the Backdrop boundary.

(Asked by 7462 answer published at October 10th 2023)

Q112 Knocking pixels off the stack scenarios

Q:

Clarification about knocking pixels off the stack. Q1: Autonomous - Is there a penalty if a robot knock pixels off own Alliance's stack while picking them, as long as the knocked-over pixels do not interfere with the opposing Alliance https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

47/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

robot. Q2: Driver Control Period - Is there a penalty for ramming into own or opposing Alliance's pixel stack (to knock them over) and then picking up 2 pixels.

A:

A1: No Penalty per rule GS05.c.i. A rule GS03.c Penalty does not apply because the scenario description stated that the knocked over Pixels do not interfere with an opposing Alliance Robot.

A2: No Penalty per rule GS05.c.i., provided that no other rules are violated. For example, Pixels may not be Propelled per rule GS10.

Note: All Pixel stacks are Alliance Neutral during the Driver-Controlled Period.

(Asked by 20373 answer published at October 16th 2023)

Q129 Is a drive team coach required for handling the

driver station android device?

Q:

My team doesn't have enough people able to attend the competitions to have the two people necessary to operate the robot, a coach, and a human player. Can we not have a coach and just have the gamepad operators also manage the driver station android device, or do we need to find another person?

A:

Yes, the Drive Team is not required to have a Coach. The Drivers (i.e., gamepad operators) are allowed to hold the Team's Driver Station Android device and interact with it to select an Op Mode, view information displayed on the screen, and initialize, start, stop, and reset the Robot per rule G23.

Note: Only one (1) Human Player represents an entire Alliance in a Match as stated in the definition of " Drive Team" in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2. The Alliance selects which Team supplies the Human Player for their Match. The Human Player that does not represent the Alliance during the Match is required to leave the Competition Area before the Alliances are directed by field personnel to approach the Playing Field to set up their Robots.

(Asked by 19591 answer published at October 19th 2023)

Q147 Robots peeling tape off playing field tiles

Q:

Some robots have been peeling tape off the field, such as those that include ramps to "scoop" pixels off the field.

Q1: Would a team be penalized for peeling tape off the field, either partially or entirely? Q2: If yes, what is the penalty? Would it mean the part itself is illegal (violates <RG01>a), or the action of peeling the tape is illegal (violates <S01>)? Q3: For example, would a soft ramp that slides along the floor be legal, provided it never peels off tape or causes any other damage?

A:

A1: Yes, rule S01 is violated if the damage is significant enough to require Match delaying repair.

A2: The consequences of violating rule S01 are described in section 4.5.1 of Game Manual Part 2: "If at any time the Robot operation is deemed unsafe or has damaged the Playing Field or another Robot, by the determination of the referees, the offending Robot may be Disabled, and the Team may be issued a Yellow Card. Re-inspection of https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

48/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

the Robot is required before it may play another Match. Damage that requires significant repair and/or delays subsequent Match play is likely to escalate to a Red Card."

A3: Ramps are not inherently illegal Robot parts; how the ramp is used in gameplay determines its illegality unless the ramp is identified as having obviously unsafe characteristics during Robot inspection.

(Asked by 21430 answer published at October 31st 2023)

Q152 May a robot shoot pixels into the backdrop?

Q:

May a robot use 2 spinning wheels to shoot pixels into the backdrop, while the robot is in the backstage area?

A:

A Robot may use spinning wheels to eject Pixels, provided that the Pixels are not Propelled per rule GS10.

A Robot's Pixel manipulator that is adjacent to the Backdrop is allowed to eject Pixels with no more energy than needed to gently place Pixels On the Backdrop. The expectation is that the ejected Pixel is in contact with the Backdrop and the wheels are simply used to release the Pixel from the Robot.

Pixels that are Propelled or ejected with excessive energy for Scoring violates rule GS10.

(Asked by 23845 answer published at November 1st 2023)

Q158 Is this a legal way to place Pixels on the

Backdrop?

Q:

Is this a legal way to place Pixels on the Backdrop? Please see link: https://youtu.be/e8oHDky7nCU?

si=VPy0TYTErJ-AJpz2

A:

No, the Robot's actions in this video violate rule GS10 because the Pixels are Propelled.

(Asked by 23845 answer published at November 2nd 2023)

Q170 Intaking the bottom two pixels off the pixel

stack

Q:

Our intake uses two spinning wheels to suck pixels off the mat and into our robot. Q1: During autonomous can our intake suck in the bottom two pixels off the stack of 5 pixels (on our alliance side) leaving the top 3 to fall wherever including off the white line without getting a penalty? Q2: During driver-control can we do the same thing without getting a penalty?

A:

The answers that you seek are found by reading rule GS05.c in Game Manual Part 2.

A1: Yes, subject to the constraints specified in rule GS05; the three (3) Pixels that are not Possessed by the Robot must be: a) no longer stacked (i.e., knocked over); or b) stacked On the white tape line.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

49/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A2: Same answer as A1.

(Asked by 16646 answer published at November 8th 2023)

Q188 Scoring Alliance's Pixels from their Backstage

Area

Q:

Are robots allowed to pick up scored pixels from their alliance's backstage area to place them on the backdrop without incurring a penalty?

A:

Yes, Robots may move Scored Pixel s from their Alliance's Backstage to a Scoring location On their Alliance's Backdrop.

(Asked by 12868 answer published at November 16th 2023)

Q189 Penalty for Robot Outside Vertical Plane

Q:

If a robot extends beyond the vertical plane of the field is there a penalty incurred? It is only for a moment as it drops a pixel, spins around, and begins cycling again. This happened in autonomous for us, but it could be during driver-controlled as the team controls the bot.

A:

Robots that extend Outside the Playing Field Perimeter are potentially unsafe. Per rule S02, Robot contact with anything Outside the Playing Field Perimeter should result in a Yellow Card and if there is danger in allowing the Robot to continue operation, it should be Disabled.

Rarely occurring, Inadvertent, safe extension Outside the Playing Field Perimeter should not be Penalized.

Repeated Robot extensions Outside the Playing Field Perimeter is no longer considered to be Inadvertent and is therefore not allowed.

(Asked by 12868 answer published at November 16th 2023)

Q190 Double Pixel Claw

Q:

We have a claw design that can grab 2 pixels at once from a stack in autonomous. If the claw grabs the top and bottom pixel, then rotates which dumps out the middle 3 pixels, is that legal, or is that considered possessing/controlling? The robot is not, otherwise, moving.

A:

The Robot is Controlling five (5) Pixels, a violation of rule GS05.a.

(Asked by 19760 answer published at November 16th 2023)

Q222 Does a mosaic have to be surrounded by white

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

50/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

pixels to count?

Q:

It is my understanding that a mosaic is made up of 3 color pixels (all the same color or all different colors) and not touching another mosaic or color pixels. Recently I was told it is only a mosaic if surrounded by white pixels. Can someone please clarify this for me? Thank you!!

A:

A Mosaic does not have to be surrounded by white Pixels to count as Scored per the definition of Mosaic in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2.

Mosaics "A" and "D" in Appendix F, illustration F-2 are examples of legal Mosaics that are not surrounded by white Pixels.

(Asked by 23213 answer published at December 5th 2023)

Q245 Mosiac Contact

Q:

Appendix F of GM2 defines a mosiac as a "cluster" that is "in contact" with the other pixels. We are asking for clarification on "in contact". Q1: Do the pixels need to be fitted snuggly together? Q2: Or, do pixels that are angled, yet still touching 2 others, also count as being "in contact"?

A:

A1: No. Pixels in a Mosaic are not required to be tessellated.

A2: Yes.

(Asked by 12868 answer published at December 18th 2023)

Q254 Propelling Pixels from the robot along the floor

Q:

Our robot uses a rotary intake system for collection. When they get stuck we push them out using the collector.

Will we receive a penalty if we stop the pixel within a short distance approx. 6 inches.

A:

Robots are allowed to eject Pixels with no more energy than needed to expel them from their intake system. A gap of six (6) inches between the Robot and Pixel may be viewed by the referee as violating rule GS10.

In this scenario, Pixel movement that is Inconsequential is more likely to be allowed by the referee.

(Asked by 12168 answer published at January 2nd 2024)

Q281 Hitting of long linear slide extensions by

opposing alliance robot

Q:

Suppose Robot A has a long linear slide extension (say, 4 feet). Suppose opposing alliance Robot B, in an attempt to get to a different position, briefly hits this extension and unintentionally causes it to break. Q1: Would this be a https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

51/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

penalty under <G26>? Q2: How would the outcome change if, instead of a glancing hit, Robot B broke the extension while attempting to push it out of the way so it could travel forwards? Q3: How would the previous scenarios change if the extension did not break?

A:

First, two guiding principals for these gameplay scenarios:

1) Regardless of a Robot's size, Drive Teams have an obligation not to: damage another Robot (G26), Pin, Trap, or Block another Robot (G28), or exercise egregious behavior (G30).

2) Robots that extend significant distances do not gain gameplay protections.

A1: It depends on how the gameplay action is viewed by the referee crew. A light bump or a glancing blow are likely to be viewed as normal gameplay. Repeated Robot impacts, contact with no clear gameplay purpose, or high energy contact are examples of gameplay that are likely to be viewed as violations of rules G26 or G30.

A2: The answer to Q1 applies.

A3: The answer to Q1 applies.

(Asked by 14343 answer published at January 18th 2024)

Q339 Is a robot disabled for losing an alliance

marker?

Q:

If one of a robot's alliance marker's falls off during a match from a collision with the field or another robot, we have been told that the robot needs to be immediately disabled. Is this correct, as I have been unable to find this in the rules?

A:

A Robot should not be declared Disabled by a Referee solely for its Alliance Marker falling off.

(Asked by 18450 answer published at February 26th 2024)

Traditional – Autonomous Period Gameplay

Q6 Crossing Center Line

Q:

Centerstage game setup has stacks of white pixels on both sides of the field. Is a robot able to use the stacks across the field centerline during autonomous?

A:

Yes, however, this is a risky Autonomous Period gameplay strategy. A Robot entering the opposing Alliance's half of the Playing Field during the Autonomous Period risks violating rule GS03.

(Asked by 20079 answer published at September 18th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

52/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q32 What exactly is considered autonomous

interference?

Q:

Consider these scenarios: Q1: A robot places a pixel in the opposing alliance's half of the playing field and the pixel disrupts an opposing alliance's robot. Q2: A robot knocks over the pixel stacks on the opposing alliance's half of the playing field and their robot is no longer able to pick them up in autonomous. Q3: Are any of these scenarios considered interference as long as my bot doesn't touch their bot or interfere with the randomization task scoring?

A:

A1: This scenario violates the Autonomous Interference rule, GS03.

A2: Knocking over a Pixel stack in the opposing Alliance's half of the Playing Field that affects an opposing Alliance Robot during the Autonomous Period, violates rule GS03.

A3: Yes, both of the scenarios in this question thread violate rule GS03, even though there is no direct Robot to Robot contact.

Note: These are great questions that may lead to the Game Design Committee adding clarifying text to the Autonomous Period Interference rule, GS03, in a future release of the Game Manual Part 2. For now, per the text in section 4.5 of Game Manual Part 2, the answers in this question thread take precedence over all information in the game manuals.

(Asked by 17873 answer published at September 21st 2023)

Q44 Backdrop scoring and restriction in Autonomous.

Q:

Q1: Do both teams in an alliance get to have their own team prop on each side of the truss? Q2: May both teams on an alliance put pixels on the backdrop and score? That way we have two yellow pixels on the backdrop by end of autonomous. Q3: Is there any way an alliance can put more colored pixels on the backdrop during the autonomous period?

A:

A1: Yes, see section 4.4.1 item 3.d in Game Manual Part 2 for how to place a Team Prop on the Playing Field during pre- Match set up.

A2: Yes.

A3: Each Drive Team may Pre-Load exactly one (1) yellow Pixel and one (1) purple Pixel during pre- Match set up as described in section 4.4.1 item 3.b in Game Manual Part 2. This is the only way non-white colored Pixels enter the Playing Field for use during the Autonomous Period.

A highly unlikely, legal way for a Robot to access an additional non-white Pixel would be by picking up a stray non-white Pixel located In its Alliance's half of the Playing Field. Keep in mind that Robots may only use its own PreLoaded Pixels to earn Randomization Task points per section 4.4.2 item 2.b in Game Manual Part 2.

(Asked by 21816 answer published at September 23rd 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

53/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q46 Interaction with the Pixel and Props on the spike

mark during autonomous

Q:

During the autonomous period while traveling to our Alliance's Backstage, is there a penalty or de-scoring if our robot bumps: Q1: Our purple Pixel off the randomly selected Spike Mark. Q2: Our prop off the randomly selected Spike Mark. Q3: Our alliance partner's purple Pixel off the randomly selected Spike Mark. Q4: Our alliance partner's prop off the randomly selected Spike Mark.

A:

A Robot is allowed to descore a Pixel from its own Alliance's Scoring Area. The only consequence is the loss of Score value (points) for the descored Pixel.

A1: No Penalty and the Purple Pixel does not earn points for the Spike Mark Randomization Task if it is Off the designated (correct) Spike Mark at the end of the Autonomous Period.

A2: No Penalty.

A3: No Penalty and the Purple Pixel does not earn points for the Spike Mark Randomization Task if it is Off the designated (correct) Spike Mark at the end of the Autonomous Period.

A4: No Penalty.

(Asked by 21457 answer published at September 23rd 2023)

Q92 Placement of Team Prop on the spike mark by

field personnel

Q:

Will the field personnel always try to place the team prop in the middle of the selected spike mark segment during randomization?

A:

Yes.

Note: Randomization relocation is not a precision activity, Teams should design their Team Prop detection system to tolerate some variation in placement location and/or orientation when it is relocated by field personnel to a different Spike Mark. The Drive Team should immediately alert field personnel if there is a significant issue with the Team Prop's centered location and/or orientation. Using the referee question box after the Match ends to alert the Head Referee about a significant issue with Team Prop location and/or orientation during randomization is too late to affect any Match outcome and it is not a justification to replay a Match.

(Asked by 23226 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

Q104 Wing penalty during autonomous period

Q:

GS09 gives major (plus minor) penalties for robots moving in the opposing alliance Wing. However, the wing has no function until driver controlled period and it is in the interference-free half of the field. The robot in the starting https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

54/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

location near the wing has very limited spaces to maneuver during autonomous. Should penalties be given for this during autonomous when there is no negative impact to the opposing team (assuming out by end of period)?

A:

Rule GS09 applies to all periods of gameplay. However, a limited, brief, and Inconsequential entry into the opposing Alliance’s Wing during the Autonomous Period is likely to be excused by the referee per rule G10.

(Asked by 19876 answer published at October 10th 2023)

Q109 Pixel Stack Movement During Autonomous

Period

Q:

Q1: If a robot during the autonomous period rams the wall in a way that knocks over multiple pixel stacks (on both red and blue sides of the field). Would this be deemed a violation of GS03? Q2: If a robot did this same action but only was able to knock over its own three stacks on its side of the field, would this be disallowed?

A:

A1: For this Autonomous Period gameplay scenario, the consequences are dependent upon the location of the knocked over Pixel Stack as described below:

Alliance’s half of the Playing Field: There are no rule GS03 consequences. Robots are allowed to knock over Pixel Stacks on their Alliance’s side of the Playing Field, provided that all of the Pixels remain on the owning Alliance’s half of the Playing Field. Pixels relocated to the opposing Alliance’s half of the Playing Field are treated as described below if the Pixels impact an opposing Alliance’s Robot.

Opposing Alliance’s half of the Playing Field: Rule GS03.c is violated if knocking over or moving the Pixels impacts or impedes the opposing Alliance’s Autonomous Period Scoring actions. Per rule GS03.c, a Major Penalty will be applied for each impacted Scoring action by an opposing Alliance Robot. There are many possible opposing Alliance Robot Scoring actions that are protected by rule GS03.c. One example scenario is a Major Penalty is assessed for each cycle of an opposing Alliance Robot: a) driving up to a pre-set Pixel Stack location (i.e. on the white tape adjacent to the Playing Field Wall) to pick up a Pixel, and then b) moving away to continue playing the game.

A2: See A1.

Warning: The referee will likely have a conversation with the Drive Team about this gameplay scenario. Robot impact with the Playing Field Wall that knocks over a Pixel Stack is likely to be viewed as violating rule S01 for unsafe Robot operation.

(Asked by 14525 answer published at October 12th 2023)

Q131 Yellow pixel straddling backdrop position

corresponding to two spike marks

Q:

Improbable as It may seem, this has now happened 2-5% of runs, wherein the yellow pixel delivered by the robot in autonomous period jumps around to settle over a position corresponding to two spike marks! The pixel's edge rests over the crest of the backdrop slots. See https://drive.google.com/open?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

55/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

id=1gIEEtlAQ1KHr4CF19mJkUWxGK5fp-6xP&usp=drive_fs where BLUE robot delivered yellow pixel, for RIGHT

team prop location, over a crest. Q: Does the team earn yellow pixel placement bonus points?

A:

A: The Pixel shown in the image does not satisfy the Scoring requirements for the Autonomous Period Backdrop Randomization Task. The Pixel is not touching a valid AprilTag Scoring surface; it is balanced on the crest. The Pixel does earn five (5) points for being On the recessed Scoring area of their Alliance Backdrop.

See illustrations E-3, E-4, E-5, and E-6 in Game Manual Part 2 for examples of legally Scored Pixels for the Autonomous Period Backdrop Randomization Task.

(Asked by 23312 answer published at October 24th 2023)

Q139 Purple Pixel scoring exactly on Spike Mark

Q:

4.2.2 #3a, 4.4.2 #2a and forum answers indicate that the purple pixel must be placed On the randomly selected Spike Mark to score. Appendix E – Randomization E-1 through E-5 show the white pixel on the spike mark Scoring examples E-7, E-8, and E-9 show bonus scored when a purple pixel was on the taped line or on the white pixel; purple pixel was not exactly on the spike mark center line to score bonus. Question: Does the purple pixel score bonus if purple pixel is anywhere On the correct tape?

A:

The answer that you seek is found by reading the definition of Spike Mark in section 4.3 and the Scoring requirement stated in section 4.4.2 #2.a in Game Manual Part 2.

From section 4.3, the Spike Mark is the entire one (1) inch wide by twelve (12) inch long piece of tape.

The Randomization Task Scoring task requirement from section 4.4.2 #2.a is that the purple Pixel must be placed On the designated Spike Mark.

Combining the definition of Spike Mark with the Randomization Task Scoring task requirement, the purple Pixel can be anywhere On the correct tape line to be eligible to earn the Spike Mark Randomization Task points.

(Asked by 16011 answer published at October 25th 2023)

Q167 In alliance's wing during autonomous

Q:

During autonomous we want to pass between the spike mark and the wall; however, we move through the opposing alliance's wing. Rule GS09 states that it is a major penalty but does that apply to autonomous?

A:

A Robot moving through the opposing Alliance's Wing during the Autonomous Period should be excused from violating rule GS09 per rule G10.

Note: The first action for a Robot that is In or Blocking access to the opposing Alliance's Wing at the start of the Driver-Controlled Period should be to immediately move away per rule GS09.

(Asked by 21457 answer published at November 8th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

56/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q173 Team Prop in opposing alliance's side of the

playing field

Q:

Q1: During the autonomous period a robot moves the team prop into the opposing alliance's side of the playing field (e.g., red to blue), is there a penalty? Q2: If the team prop that was moved hits the opposing robot is that a penalty?

A:

A1: A Major Penalty will be assessed if the Robot or the relocated Team Prop impacts or impedes the opposing Alliance’s Autonomous Period Scoring actions per rule GS03.a.

A2: Yes, per rule GS03.a.

(Asked by 23302 answer published at November 8th 2023)

Q224 Robot Collision During Autonomous

Q:

Q1: How is a violation determined when two robots collide at the center line of the field during the autonomous phase? Q2: If both sides cross the center line, are both penalized? Q3: If the blue alliance robot crosses the centerline, is the penalty against the blue alliance?

A:

A1: Using the definition of " Interference" found in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2, the referee will apply the Autonomous Interference rule (GS03.a) as appropriate. For example, which Alliance Robot crossed Into the opposing Alliance's half of the Playing Field.

A2: The referee will make the rule GS03.a determination based on the sequence of gameplay events. For example, the Robot that crossed into the opposing Alliance's half of the Playing Field first will most likely be viewed as the instigator of the Interference.

A3: Yes, a Robot that crosses into the opposing Alliance's half of the Playing Field and then Interferes with an opposing Alliance Robot will receive the rule GS03.a Penalty.

(Asked by 17257 answer published at December 6th 2023)

Q231 Clarification of Scoring Randomization Tasks

Q:

The following statement is from section 4.4.2: “A Robot may only use its own Pre-Loaded Pixels to earn Randomization Task points.” What scores would be given to the following scenarios? Q1: Robot A places its yellow pixel is on the backdrop. Robot B drops a pixel on the backdrop that happens to hit A’s yellow pixel moving it into the correct randomization position. Q2: Robot A has no autonomous program. Robot B pushes Robot A into A’s purple pixel until it is on the correct spike mark.

A:

The intent of the statement: "A Robot may only use its own Pre-Loaded Pixels to earn Randomization Task points”

is for the Robot to Control and place its own Pre-Loaded Pixels into the Scoring Area.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

57/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A1: This scenario satisfies the intent that a Robot Controls and places its own Pre-Loaded Pixels into the Scoring Area. Robot A's Pixel is eligible to earn the Backdrop Randomization Task points.

Robot A's Pixel would not be eligible to earn the Backdrop Randomization Task points if Robot B directly moved Robot A's Pixel to the correct Scoring location.

A2: The Robot's actions in this scenario do not comply with the intent stated above. Robot A's purple Pixel is not eligible to earn the Spike Mark Randomization Task points.

(Asked by 14343 answer published at December 18th 2023)

Q256 Partner Yellow Pixel Bumped to Scoring

Position

Q:

Following up on Q231. Scenario: Robot A places its yellow pixel in the wrong randomization position on the backdrop. When Robot B places its yellow pixel, it doesn't drop it on the back drop, it drags the pixel it to its final position before releasing. If, during this process, the yellow pixel (and only the yellow pixel) Robot B is controlling contacts Robot A's yellow pixel causing it to end up in a scoring position, did this contact make Robot A's pixel ineligible for scoring the bonus?

A:

Robot A's yellow Pixel is not eligible to earn the the Backdrop Randomization Task points. The Pixel Controlled by Robot B moved Robot A's yellow Pixel into the Scoring location.

Note: The yellow Pixel placed on the Backdrop by Robot A is eligible to earn five (5) points during the Autonomous Period for being On the recessed Scoring area of the Backdrop.

(Asked by 9415 answer published at January 2nd 2024)

Q291 GS03 Interference Caused By Team Prop

Q:

During auto, Team 1234 has a Team Prop that is a ball, and is within specifications of all TE rules. However, it rolls into the opposing alliance's side consistently in most matches and often collides and disrupts the other alliance's auto. Would this be in violation of <GS03>, even though it is not the robot itself from Team 1234? Specifically, I am asking if a team prop were to cross into Tiles D, E, or F (and came from A, B, or C), would that be a penalty under

<GS03>, regardless of intent?

A:

We believe Q173 (/qa/173) answers your question. If it does not, please rephrase your question and resubmit.

Note: The Robot's intent does not affect the answers in Q173 (/qa/173) .

(Asked by 5155 answer published at January 23rd 2024)

Q300 Robot caused some white pixels to fall into

opponent's wing during autonomous

Q:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

58/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

If our robot, during autonomous, accidentally causes some white pixels to fall into the opponent's wing, will this be penalized?

A:

Yes, each Pixel moved into the opposing Alliance's Wing will receive a Major Penalty per rule G29. Application of GS03, GS05.a, GS09.b, and GS10 consequences will also apply for certain gameplay scenarios.

(Asked by 23226 answer published at January 29th 2024)

Q340 Applying rule G10 during the Autonomous

Period.

Q:

Q1: Are there any guidelines to what is considered inconsequential by rule G10? Q2: Should de-scoring opponents pixels ever be deemed inconsequential? Q3: Should GS03 ever be over-ruled by G10 if the robot being interfered with during autonomous is still moving and attempting to score autonomous points?

A:

A1: Referees use the definition of Inconsequential in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part when applying rule G10.

For the CENTERSTAGE game, an outcome that does not influence Scoring or gameplay is Inconsequential.

A2: Per the definition of Inconsequential in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2, de-scoring an opponent's Pixel is not Inconsequential.

A3: We are not able to absolutely comment on this gameplay scenario. The vast majority of Interference scenarios during the Autonomous Period that we can imagine should not be eligible for a rule G10 override of rule GS03.

However, we can think of a few examples where a referee may consider applying rule G10. For example, open field Robot contact away from any scoring or Pixel collection areas that occurs very near the end of the Autonomous Period could be considered by the referee as qualifying for a rule G10 override of rule GS03.

(Asked by 18450 answer published at February 29th 2024)

Q347 Penalties for autonomous collision descoring

yellow pixels

Q:

An alliance scores two yellow pixels correctly (per randomization) during autonomous. An opposing alliance robot then crosses the midline, collides with a parked robot, causing it to bump the backdrop, descoring the two yellow pixels. What should the penalties be in this case?

A:

The Alliance that caused the descoring receives two Major Penalties (one Penalty per descored Pixel) for Interfering with the opposing Alliance’s Randomization Task Scoring per rule GS03.b.

(Asked by 6547 answer published at March 7th 2024)

Q353 Clarification on GS03 penalty quantity for

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

59/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Autonomous Interference

Q:

In a recent tournament, early autonomous interference prevented cycling of white pixels and parking. One major penalty was applied. In this case and many possible others, the 1x major penalty was less than the potential lost autonomous points. Can the GDC propose a solution to the point advantage of a single major penalty (30 pts) vs preventing a high-scoring autonomous (45+ pts)? Please consider that showing intent (egregious behavior) vs an accidental mis-click or SW bug is likely unprovable.

A:

First of all, the Game Design Committee understands your concern. All things considered, we feel that rule GS03

and its consequences provides a reasonable balance between the affect on gameplay and reparations.

1) The single GS03 Penalty applied is correct based on the limited description of the gameplay scenario.

2) Applying additional consequences based on what a Robot that was Interfered with might have done otherwise during the remainder of the Autonomous period is not possible.

3) You are correct, distinguishing between intent and an accidental miscue during the Autonomous Period is likely to be unprovable.

4) The Game Design Committee feels that rule GS03 violation consequences are fair to all parties in the vast majority of scenarios.

(Asked by 19746 answer published at March 28th 2024)

Traditional – Driver-Controlled Period

Gameplay

Q4 <GS12> Game scoring elements in wing

Q:

<GS12> line c: Human Players may place a maximum of two (2) Pixels or one (1) Drone In a Wing at a time. This has “or”. Is this in one human action? An action being human placing one or two elements, and pull back outside boundary, Other rule, <GS09> line d has 6 elements in wing.

A:

Yes, the rule GS12.c limitation is per "human action". The Human Player may place into the Wing either one (1) Pixel, two (2) Pixels, or one (1) Drone during a single action. The Human Player must be Outside the Playing Field Perimeter between cycles of placing objects into the Wing.

(Asked by 20079 answer published at September 18th 2023)

Q9 <GS09> Wing Constraints - Is there a maximum

number of drones allowed in the wing?

Q:

<GS09> Doesn't address the maximum number of drones allowed in the wing. Does this mean there is no limit?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

60/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

A maximum of two Drones are allowed to be placed in their corresponding Alliance's Wing.

Bonus Information: Each Team is allowed to provide only one (1) Drone for a Match.

(Asked by 23410 answer published at September 18th 2023)

Q35 Drone Placement in the Wing

Q:

Q1: A human player can not be in the wing, if a robot is in the wing. Correct? Q2: If a drone is not pre-loaded on the robot before the match, it can be placed in the wing by the human player. Does the robot have to load the drone itself? I'm assuming that it could not be done by the human player.

A:

A1: Yes, this is a correct statement. See rule GS12 to learn all of the Human Player constraints.

A2: Yes, the Robot would need to load the Drone itself without human assistance per rule GS12.h.

(Asked by 4149 answer published at September 21st 2023)

Q86 Placing Pixels On either Backdrop

Q:

Q1: Provided no rules are violated, during the Driver-Controlled period may a robot place Pixels On either Alliance's Backdrop during gameplay? Q2: For example, during Driver-Controlled, may a Robot on the Blue Alliance places a Pixel On the Red Alliance's Backdrop?

A:

A1: No, placing a Pixel On the opposing Alliance's Backdrop violates rule G29 for amplifying the difficulty of creating a Mosaic.

A2: No, per A1.

Note: The Drive Team needs to be careful not to violate rules G28 ( Pinning, Trapping, and Blocking), GS04

(descoring), and GS08 ( Backdrop and Backstage constraints) while their Robot is near the opposing Alliance's Backdrop and Backstage.

(Asked by 8672 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

Q111 Communication between Human Player and

Drive Team

Q:

My drive team is finding it near impossible to view the pixel(s) during intake from the wing (due to large opaque robot size). Is it legal for the human player to communicate with the drive team via: a) short verbal commands (forward, backward, intake, outtake, etc.), b) hand signs (raised finger(s), open palm, closed fist, etc.), c) small colored flags/paper tokens?

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

61/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

The Human Player actions described in a), b) and c) are all allowed provided that the Human Player does not: 1) Distract an opposing Alliance Drive Team per rule G16.c.

2) Reach Into the Playing Field per rule GS12.h.

3) Use electronics of any type per rule G11.

4) Dropping or placing signaling aids into the Playing Field are subject to rule G22.

(Asked by 23312 answer published at October 17th 2023)

Q124 Possession of pixels on backdrop clarification.

Q:

Q57 makes it clear that pixels on the backdrop do not count toward the possession limit. If a robot is holding two pixels, will it incur possession penalties by removing a pixel from the backdrop (therefore no longer being supported by the backdrop) and placing it back on the backdrop?

A:

The answer that you seek is found by reviewing the Robot Control/Possession limits for Scoring Elements rule (GS05).

After removing the Pixel from the Backdrop, the Robot in this scenario is no longer protected by rule GS05.c.v and is therefore Possessing three (3) Pixels, one (1) more than the maximum allowed number of Pixels per rule GS05.a. The Robot/Alliance should receive an immediate Minor Penalty for Possessing one Pixel over the allowed limit of two (2) Pixels. An additional Minor Penalty for the excess Possessed Pixel should be assessed for each 5-second interval that the Robot continues to Possesses three (3) Pixels.

If the Robot Scores a Pixel on the Backdrop or in the Backstage while Possessing three (3) Pixels, the Robot/Alliance will receive an additional Minor Penalty per rule GS05.b.

(Asked by 8693 answer published at October 18th 2023)

Q125 Communication Between the Drive Team

Coach and the Human Player

Q:

Q1: May the drive team coach use a white board or pre-printed signs to communicate with the human player on color and placement of pixels in the wing? Q2: May the drive team coach move around the Alliance Station to be closer to the human player and then return to their drive team?

A:

A1: Yes, Drive Team members may use signaling aids that satisfy the restrictions listed below.

Q111 (/qa/111) provides the Human Player with guidance for using signaling aids. Drive Team members in an Alliance Station may also use signaling aids with additional restrictions to address safety and interference issues that arise from six (6) people occupying a confined space. Guidance for the Human Player is less restrictive due to the isolated, single occupant Human Player Station.

Drive Team members may use signaling aids when abiding by the following restrictions: 1) The signaling aids are not a safety hazard. For example, placing a signaling aid on the floor is a tripping hazard.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

62/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

2) Small hand-held signaling aids, including white boards and pre-printed signs, are allowed.

3) The signaling aid may not be intentionally dropped or placed on the floor.

4) If the signaling aid is accidentally dropped, it will not harm the venue floor.

5) The signaling aid and Drive Team member do not distract an opposing Alliance Drive Team per rule G16.c.

6) The Drive Team member doesn't reach Into the Playing Field per rule GS12.h.

7) The signaling aid doesn't use electronics of any type per rule G11.

8) Dropped or placed signaling aid(s) into the Playing Field are subject to rule G22.

A2: Yes, provided that the Drive Team member remains In their Alliance Station per rules G16 and G16a, and does not distract nor interfere with the opposing Alliance’s Human Player or Drive Team per rule G16.c.

(Asked by 21457 answer published at October 19th 2023)

Q163 Robot signaling to Human Player

Q:

Ref. <G11>, Q125, & Q111, Drive Team communication to Robot, for signaling to the Human Player. <G11> permits use of the Driver Station for “operating the robot”. Is it still legal, if its purpose is to signal the Human Player? e.g.: A Driver Station command causes a Robot-mounted servo to raise a colored semaphore flag, or illuminate an indicator light on the Robot. The Human Player sees this signal, and selects a colored pixel to place in the wing, based on the color of the flag, or light.

A:

The action described is legal, provided that the signaling device does not distract or interfere with an opposing Alliance Drive Team per rules RE12.b, and G16.c.

(Asked by 16102 answer published at November 8th 2023)

Q211 Pixel in both backstages at once

Q:

Q1: Our question is about a pixel that is in both the backstages at ones does this mean it is scored for both alliances? Q2: And if so is it a penalty for moving that pixel to only your backstage (officially descoring it for the opposing alliance)

A:

A1: No, a Pixel straddling the small nexus of the two Backstage Areas does not count as Scored for either Alliance.

A2: The question is not applicable since the Pixel is not in a Scored state while it is in both Alliances' Backstage Areas.

(Asked by 19444 answer published at November 27th 2023)

Q221 Pixel suspended on backdrop

Q:

We had a pixel that became suspended on the backdrop on its own and stayed there for over 5 minutes while other pixels were being moved around. See picture - https://ibb.co/Y2msW8v While unlikely, would this pixel qualify https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

63/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

for the Set Bonus?

A:

No, the Pixel in the photo is resting on top of the Set Line, it does not satisfy the Game Manual Part 2 section 4.4.3

Set Bonus requirement that " Scored Pixels On a Backdrop extend In a horizontal Set Line."

The intent of the Set Bonus achievement is for stacked group of Scored Pixels to extend upward from the bottom of the Backdrop so that one or more of the Pixels extends In a Set Line.

(Asked by 5126 answer published at December 5th 2023)

Q225 Blocking access to the wing - GS09

Q:

Q1: Is an opposing alliance's robot exempt from GS09 and block/blocking rules if they are attempting to intake a white pixel from directly in front of the opposing alliance's wing and blocking any access to their wing? Q2: Does the answer to Q1 change if they're 'intaking' involves shadowing the opposing alliance robot unintentionally, moving parallel to the wing tape line? Q3: Is there any clarification of how driver intention can alter a referee's judgement of the application of GS09.b?

A:

A1: No, rule GS09 applies to this scenario.

A2: No.

A3: The intention of the Blocking Robot's Drive Team is not a factor when applying rule GS09.b to a gameplay scenario.

(Asked by 23331 answer published at December 7th 2023)

Q226 Human Player - Mirror Signal Tool

Q:

The drive team can't see around the robot. May the human player hold a mirror to help the drive team properly align/find the pixels?

A:

This is a creative, but disallowed strategy for overcoming the referenced gameplay challenge.

The Human Player may not use a mirror at the competition Playing Field due to concerns about distracting the opposing Alliance Drive Team (G16.c), distracting field personnel, and safety.

(Asked by 6272 answer published at December 7th 2023)

Q242 How many of the pixels in the wing could have

been placed by the human player?

Q:

In Game Manual 2, section <GS09>d, it is written "There can be a maximum of six Pixels In the Wing at any one time." In the same manual, <GS12>c, it is written "Human Players may place a maximum of two Pixels...at a time."

We thought that meant the human players may place 2 pixels and then, if those have been removed or not, he can https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

64/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

place 2 more. Others have said it meant that there can only be 2 pixels in the wing at any time that have been placed there by the human player. Who's right?

A:

Each time the Human Player reaches into the Playing Field they may place: a) one (1) Drone, b) one (1) Pixel, or c) two (2) Pixels In the Wing, per rule GS12.c

The maximum Pixel capacity of a Wing is six (6) Pixels per rule GS09.d.

The Human Player may continue to place Pixels In the Wing per rule GS12 until the six (6) Pixel limit is reached, per rule GS09.d.

For example:

i) There are four (4) Pixels In the Wing. The Human Player has the option of placing either one (1) or two (2) additional Pixels into the Wing.

ii) There are five (5) Pixels In the Wing. The Human Player may place one (1) additional Pixel into the Wing.

iii) There are six (6) Pixels In the Wing. The Human Player may not place an additional Pixel into the Wing.

(Asked by 21843 answer published at December 18th 2023)

Q265 Sidewalls as a reflexive surface?

Q:

It is understood that a human player may not utilize a mirror during gameplay. Can they, however, use a solid-color material to create a situation that allows for the driver to see the pixels using only the innate reflexiveness of the sidewalls?

A:

Yes, provided that the material is not within the Playing Field Perimeter, does not contact the Playing Field Wall, and does not extend laterally beyond the Alliance-side Playing Field Wall corner.

(Asked by 7039 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q295 Bump white pixels from the stack into opponent

wing

Q:

Q1: Is it legal for a robot to push some white pixels from a pixel stack into the opponent's wing? Q2: Will these white pixels count towards the 6 total pixels allowed in the wing at any time?

A:

A1: No, each Pixel moved into the opposing Alliance's Wing will receive a Major Penalty per rule G29. Application of GS05.a, GS09.b, and GS10 consequences will also apply for certain gameplay scenarios.

A2: Yes, however the opposing Alliance has rule G03 protections. For example, if a red Alliance Robot causes the blue Alliance Wing to contain seven (7) Pixels, the blue Alliance does not receive rule GS09.d Penalty points for the excess Pixel. The blue Alliance Robot and/or Human Player may not add Pixels to their Wing until the Wing's Pixel count is less than six (6).

(Asked by 23226 answer published at January 25th 2024)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

65/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q296 Is plowing through the pixel stacks considered

propelling and legal?

Q:

A robot intentionally plows through the 6 pixel stacks so it will be harder for certain types of robot, such as those picking up two pixels from a stack. Is this considered legal?

A:

Intentionally Plowing is not a possible gameplay scenario because the definition of Plowing in Game Manual Part 2

states: " Inadvertent contact with Game Elements while in the path of the Robot moving about the Playing Field that provides no additional advantages beyond field mobility." The scenario described in the question is intentional, not Inadvertent, and the Robot's actions provide advantages beyond field mobility.

Rephrasing the scenario to: A Robot intentionally knocks over Pixel stacks in a manner that is allowed by rule GS05.c.i so it will be harder for certain types of Robots, such as those picking up two Pixels from a stack. Is this considered legal?

Yes, the Robot's actions in this scenario are allowed, provided that no other rule is violated.

(Asked by 23226 answer published at January 25th 2024)

Q316 Can the drive team use LEDs to communicate

to the Human Player

Q:

We were discussing using colored LEDs powered by a microprocessor to communicate between a Drive Team Coach and the Human Player. The Drive Team Coach would be in possession of both the controls to change the color and the LEDs. The intent of rule G11 seems to be to prevent wireless communication by members of the drive team. While this is still "electronic communication", the result is essentially the same as holding up colored pieces of paper to indicate pixel colors. Would this be allowed?

A:

A Drive Team may not use LEDs powered by a microprocessor during a Match. The intent of Rule G11 is to prohibit the Drive Team from communicating with electrically powered devices that are not specifically allowed by a rule. For example, the Driver Station rules allow specific electronics.

(Asked by 21495 answer published at February 7th 2024)

Q321 Blocking access to the wing further clarification

Q:

Is blue alliance robot intaking from the stacks and located in tile B1 and B2 who's not actively and for an extended period blocking all access paths to the wing considered to be blocking as per GS09?

A:

No, provided that the path from the back half of the Playing Field towards the audience through the Tile A3 Truss segment and Tiles A1 and A2 is not obstructed.

Note: During the End Game, rule GS06.f will apply to certain scenarios.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

66/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

(Asked by 19071 answer published at February 7th 2024)

Q332 Damage to field causes other alliance

movement issues

Q:

Q1: If a robot damages the truss in a way that distorts the stage door (without the robot touching the stage door) and causes an opposing alliance robot to get stuck while traveling under the stage door is rule GS07.b or GS07.c violated? Q2: If this happens is this considered major field damage? Q3: What should the stuck robot do?

A:

A1: No, rules GS07.b and GS07.c are intended to address a Robot that directly prevents the Stage Door from operating normally or disrupting the transit of a opposing Alliance Robot.

A2: Rule S01 applies to this gameplay scenario. The magnitude of the consequence applied to the offending Robot depends on the severity of the Playing Field damage. For example, damage that requires significant repair and/or delays subsequent Match play is likely to escalate to a Red Card.

Q3: The Drive Team for the stuck Robot should attempt to free their Robot from the Stage Door. If assistance is needed, ask the Alliance Partner for help.

If the stuck Robot is not able to free itself from the Stage Door, notify a Referee that the Robot is stuck and not able to continue with gameplay.

Note: At the discretion of the head referee, the Match replay rule (G09) may apply to this scenario if the Playing Field damage was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match, (Asked by 7078 answer published at February 14th 2024)

Q334 Blocking wing by stuck robot

Q:

During the driver-controlled period, if a robot stops moving in front of (not in) the opposing alliances wing creating a situation that the only way the opposing alliance can get in the wing is to push the non moving robot into the wing, would this be a violation of GS09.b. Q2: Would the pushing robot in this case violate G03? Q3: If the non moving robot is disconnected and non functioning does this change the answer?

A:

A1: If we understand the scenario correctly, a red Alliance Robot does not move, it has not been declared Disabled by a referee, and it is Blocking a blue Alliance Robot from accessing the blue Alliance Wing. Rule GS09.b consequences apply to the red Alliance Robot while it is Outside the Wing. See A2 below for how to apply gameplay rules after the blue Alliance Robot pushes the red Alliance Robot In the Wing.

A2: Rule G03 protections for the red Alliance Robot do not apply when the blue Alliance Robot pushes the red Alliance Robot into the Wing because rule GS09.b was already violated before the Robot was pushed into the Wing; rule GS09.b is continuously violated in this scenario. Rule GS09.b consequences should be applied to the red Alliance Robot for the entire time.

A3: If we understand the new scenario correctly, the only change is that the red Alliance Robot is declared Disabled by a referee for the entire scenario.

While Outside the Wing, rule G07 protects the Disabled red Alliance Robot from receiving Penalties.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

67/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

The Disabled red Alliance Robot that was pushed by the blue Alliance Robot into the Wing is protected by rule G03 and will not receive rule GS09.b Penalties.

(Asked by 7078 answer published at February 15th 2024)

Q341 Crossing a opposing Alliance's truss during

Driver-Control period

Q:

Can the Red Alliance cross over to the Blue Alliance side and go under their Blue Alliance truss during the Driver-Control Period to get to the Red Alliance Wing?

A:

Yes, the Robot's path of travel described in the question is allowed. Keep in mind that rules GS06.d, GS06.f, and G28 may apply depending on the gameplay scenario.

(Asked by 13714 answer published at March 4th 2024)

Q346 Placing pixels in the wing

Q:

A human player is working on placing pixels in their wing. The pixels have broken the plane of the playing field wall, but have not yet been placed. At this point the human player recognizes that an alliance robot is coming to get pixels from the wing. Can the human player remove the pixels that not yet been placed so the robot can enter the wing without penalty or must they be placed before the alliance robot enters the wing?

A:

Yes, the Human Player with the Pixels that have not been placed may back out of the Playing Field Perimeter without violating a rule.

(Asked by 20515 answer published at March 5th 2024)

Q351 Pushing pixels in the other alliance's wing

Q:

Each alliance has a wing and a stack of pixels next to the wing. Q1: If a robot pushes pixels from the top of the stack to the floor by a claw/robot body, and some of the pixels fall to the opposing alliance wing, is it a penalty?

Q2: If by accident I try to pick them up but they go in the opposing alliance wing. Q3: Will it be possible to pick up pixels from the opposing alliance wing? Q4: Does the opposing alliance receive a penalty because they have more than 6 pixels in their wing?

A:

A1: Yes, each Pixel moved into the opposing Alliance's Wing will receive a Major Penalty per rule G29. Application of GS05.a, GS09.b, and GS10 consequences will also apply for certain gameplay scenarios.

A2: Same answer as A1.

A3: No, per rule GS09.b.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

68/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A4: No, the opposing Alliance is protected from Penalties per rule G03. For example, if a red Alliance Robot causes the blue Alliance Wing to contain seven (7) Pixels, the blue Alliance does not receive rule GS09.d Penalty points for the excess Pixel. The blue Alliance Robot and/or Human Player may not add Pixels to their Wing until the Wing's Pixel count is less than six (6).

(Asked by 22947 answer published at March 12th 2024)

Q354 GS05 - Moving pixel stack while collecting

Q:

Rule GS05 states in part that moving a pixel stack completely off the white line is not allowed, but knocking it over is allowed. May a robot knock over (scatter) a pixel stack while it is collecting the bottom two pixels in the stack?

A:

Yes, per rule GS05.a and GS05.c.i.

(Asked by 7393 answer published at March 28th 2024)

Traditional – End Game Gameplay

Q8 Launching a Drone from Robot Suspended from

Rigging

Q:

Section 4.4.4.2 End Game states that launched drones must pass over the rigging and/or stage door to be considered for scoring, which seems reinforced by GS11e. GS11d seems to consider drones launching from suspended robots separately. Does a drone launched from a suspended robot need to pass over the rigging/stage door to score?

A:

Yes.

(Asked by 18240 answer published at September 18th 2023)

Q11 Section 4.4.4 end game and <GS11> e. Drone

must pass over the Truss or Stage Door

Q:

Per the rules, for each scoring attempt (Launch, fly, land), a Launched Drone must pass over a Rigging or top pole of the Stage Door before it is eligible to Score points. May a Drone pass over a Rigging or top pole of the Stage Door MULTIPLE times during a launch, fly, land sequence?

A:

Yes.

(Asked by 23410 answer published at September 18th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

69/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q16 Drone Launching

Q:

How is "over" defined for the purpose of <4.4.4.2> "Launched Drones must pass over the Truss and/or Stage Door for each scoring attempt to earn points." Specifically, does the drone need to be fully clear of touching its launching robot before the leading edge of the drone passes the plane over the Rigging or before the trailing edge leaves the plane above the Rigging?

A:

A Robot must release the Drone (i.e, no Drone contact with the Robot) before any part of the Drone passes over the Rigging or top pole of the Stage Door.

The following text demonstrates how to use the Game Manual to substantiate the answer.

The answer to the question is found by applying the game-specific definitions of " Launch/Launching" and

" Propel/Propelling" found in section 4.3 of Game Manual Part 2 to rule GS11.e.

Rule GS11.e states that "for each scoring attempt ( Launch, fly, land), a Launched Drone must pass over a Rigging or top pole of the Stage Door before it is eligible to Score points. The key point is that the Drone must be Launched before passing over the specified Game Elements. Next, we need to understand and apply the definition of

" Launch."

" Launch/Launching" is defined as Propelling Game Elements through the air or water above the Playing Field Floor. Okay, now we need to review the definition of " Propelling."

" Propel/Propelling" is defined as giving Game Elements enough force such that they move independent of contact with the Robot or Human Player.

Therefore, a " Launched" Drone is no longer touching the Robot.

(Asked by 15259 answer published at September 19th 2023)

Q18 Suspend at end of the match

Q:

Q1: Does a robot have to be suspended at the end of the match to count for suspend points? Q2: Does the robot still get the points for suspending if they suspend from the rigging at end game, make it obvious and unambiguous, and then come down off the rigging and go on the floor?

A:

The answers that you seek are found by reading the description of the Robot location tasks in Game Manual Part 2 section 4.4.4 End Game.

A1: Yes, to earn 20 points for being Suspended from the Rigging, a Robot must be Suspended from the Rigging when the scoring system Match timer reaches zero seconds (0:00) remaining in the Match or at some point during the end of Match sound played by the scoring system. After the Match ends, the Robot may remain Suspended or lower to the Playing Field Floor without affecting the previously earned 20 points for completing the Suspended from the Rigging achievement.

A2: No, a Robot located on the Playing Field Floor at the end of the Match (i.e., match time equals 0:00) does not satisfy the requirement of being Suspended by the Rigging at the End of the Period. However, there is still time to complete the scoring achievement; the Robot Suspension task may still occur, provided that the Robot is Suspended by the conclusion of the end of Match sound played by the scoring system.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

70/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Note: A1 and A2 were updated on November 6, 2023 to recognize that the end of Match buzzer length is a "grace period" for accomplishing the Suspension task.

(Asked by 14623 answer published at September 20th 2023)

Q21 Drone Trajectory

Q:

The rule <DR02> states – "... the aerodynamic surfaces cause the Drones to follow a non-ballistic trajectory while flying." There is a non-zero chance that, unintentionally, the drone ends up flying with a near ballistic trajectory. Q: Does the team incur a penalty if this happens?

A:

If the Drone has passed inspection and it remains in a legal configuration (rule GS11.f) throughout the Match, a gameplay penalty is not assessed if it flies with a "near ballistic trajectory."

A referee may require the Drone to be reinspected before it is used in a subsequent Match if there is concern that it violates a construction rule.

(Asked by 23312 answer published at September 20th 2023)

Q30 Drone trajectory height / distance

Q:

Rule <RG07> Propelling Game Scoring Elements in GM1 states in part that scoring elements may only propel scoring elements with enough velocity to score and that Robots may not propel a scoring element in the air more than a 18 ft. (5.49 m) distance or more than 5 ft. (1.52 m) in elevation. Q1: Since the field + the scoring zone is 18'

what is the penalty if the drone overshoots? Q2: How will the height be measured?

A:

A1: The first instance of violating the Drone trajectory constraints during gameplay will not be penalized and the Drone is eligible to earn points for Parking In a Landing Zone. If a referee believes that the Drone exceeded the constraints described in rule RG07, the Drone must be reinspected before it can be used again in a Match.

A2: A typical Drone trajectory testing area will be an open space next to a wall. Tape on the floor and wall will mark the distance and height constraints. The Robot will be positioned so that the Launched Drone's trajectory is along/parallel to the wall. The inspector will observe the Robot Launching the Drone several times to determine compliance with rule RG07.

(Asked by 9242 answer published at September 21st 2023)

Q38 Rigging suspension and robot weight

Q:

Our team was discussing the rigging suspension task and thinking about years past about how there was a weight limit for suspending. Q1: Is there going to be an update to a weight limit? Q2: If not, what is the ruling if a pole bends or brakes due to robot weight?

A:

A1: No, we feel that the Truss and Rigging will be able to withstand a "maximum" weight Robot. Robot weight was a major consideration when designing the Truss structure and writing the Truss constraints rule, GS06.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

71/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A2: Rule S01 in Game Manual Part 2 describes the consequences for Playing Field damage. Some bending of the Rigging is expected while a Robot is Suspended. No Penalty will be administered if the Rigging returns to its nominal shape in time for the next Match on that Playing Field.

(Asked by 130 answer published at September 22nd 2023)

Q41 Non-Ballistic Trajectory

Q:

Q1: How will Robot Inspectors define non-ballistic trajectory (from <DR02>)? Q2: From Q21: How will Referees define "near ballistic trajectory"?

A:

A1: Robot Inspectors will evaluate compliance with rule DR02 by focusing on the Drone having the general configuration of an airplane with a defined fuselage and wings. A guide to assist Teams and Robot Inspectors with evaluating Drone designs will be published soon on the Volunteer Resources

(https://www.firstinspires.org/node/5146) webpage.

Robot Inspectors are not expected to validate the non-ballistic quality of Drone flight. When asked by a referee, a Robot Inspector will verify that the Drone's trajectory used in gameplay complies with rule RG07 in Game Manual Part 1. The typical setup for verifying rule RG07 compliance is described in the answer to Q30 (/qa/30) .

A2: Referees will focus on: a) Compliance with the Drone constraints rule GS10 and; b) Drone trajectory height and distance compliance with rule RG07. The ballistic characteristics of the Drone's trajectory is not a gameplay metric for the referee.

(Asked by 15259 answer published at September 26th 2023)

Q43 Drone in air when time is up

Q:

A drone is launched during last couple seconds of the end game phase. Does the score count if the drone is launched right before the game finishes and lands after game time is up? We are talking about 2-3 seconds of margin where the drone might be launched and up in the air and time is up after the match.

A:

Yes, the Drone is eligible to earn Landing Zone points per rule G20.b in Game Manual Part 2.

(Asked by 21816 answer published at September 23rd 2023)

Q65 GS11.g.i - Tall robots being hit by opposing

alliance drone near the audience side wall

Q:

Rule GS11>g.i states - "Affecting the flight of an opposing Alliances Drone above Playing Field Wall.... Opposing Alliance Drone receives points for Landing Zone 1." Scenario: A tall RED robot parks itself right along the audience side perimeter wall, during the game play. A BLUE drone hits it during end game and falls into the playing field instead of landing/falling into zone 1/2/3. RED team had no way of knowing the BLUE drone trajectory. Is this scenario a violation of <GS11>g.i?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

72/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

Yes, the red Alliance Robot in this scenario violates rule GS11.g.i.

When a Drone contacts an opposing Alliance Robot that is actively playing the game in the front half (audience side) of the Playing Field, the referee may use their judgement to decide if it was allowed gameplay or if a rule GS11.g.i violation Warning or Penalty should be applied.

In the scenario described in the question, the Parked Robot is not actively playing the game and is likely to be viewed by the referee as a strategy to interfere with a Drone's flightpath.

The following are a few examples of active gameplay that are unlikely to be viewed as violating rule GS11.g.i if the Robot contacts an opposing Alliance Drone.

a) A Robot driving from their Alliance's Wing along an approximate direct path through the Truss or Stage Door towards their Backstage area.

b) A Robot returning from their Backstage area along an approximate direct path through the Truss or Stage Door towards their Alliance's Wing.

c) A Robot preparing to Suspend.

d) A Suspended Robot.

Example scenarios where the referee is likely to issue a rule GS11.g.i Warning or Penalty are: e) A Robot moving around the front half (audience size) of the Playing Field without an obvious Scoring Element collection, transportation, or Scoring purpose.

f) A Robot Parked in the front half (audience) side of the Playing Field.

Note: Robots have an obligation during the End Game to avoid gameplay strategies that interfere with an opposing Alliance Drone's trajectory. Similarly, a Robot Launching a Drone may not use rule GS11.g protections as a strategy to receive Landing Zone 1 points.

(Asked by 23312 answer published at September 26th 2023)

Q66 GS11.b - Inadvertent possession of another

Team’s Drone.

Q:

Rule <GS11>b - "A Robot may not Possess a Drone provided by another Team. A Major Penalty will be assessed for violating this rule." Scenario: A RED alliance drone is launched during the end game and lands inside/over a BLUE alliance robot. BLUE robot is unable to shake off the RED drone. Does the BLUE alliance incur a penalty for this inadvertent, and completely out of their control, possession of RED drone?

A:

No Penalty should be assessed for this Inadvertent gameplay scenario.

The inadvertently Possessed Drone does not count towards the Robot's one (1) Drone Control/Possession limit (GS05.a). The Robot may continue normal gameplay; trying to "shake off" the stray Drone is not required.

(Asked by 23312 answer published at September 26th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

73/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q70 Drone Curved Glide Path

Q:

Q1: The answer to Q30 may imply that only straight drone flights are permitted, what if a drone is meant to follow a curved glide path? Q2: Is it right to assume that the drone cannot exceed a 12' wide x 18' long x 5' high space flight space? Q3: If following a curved trajectory, may a drone leave the field space before returning to the Landing Zone?

A:

A1: In general, a curved glide path is allowed.

A2: The Game Manual does not specify a lateral (wide) trajectory constraint. The geometry of the gameplay area is the practical limitation for the Drone trajectory. The eighteen (18) ft. long and five (5) ft. high Drone trajectory limits described in rule RG07 will be enforced.

A3: A Drone is allowed to exit the Playing Field in any direction. There are consequences if the Drone impacts something Outside the Playing Field Wall as described in rules GS11.g.iii, GS11.g.iv, GS11.g.v., and S1 if there is a safety hazard.

Note 1: Drone trajectory strategies that exit the Playing Field Perimeter other than through the audience edge of the Playing Field Wall do so at their own risk.

Note 2: A Drone impacting a Drive Team member of either Alliance in a manner that is not interference (i.e., the Drive Team member was not able to avoid being hit) should be treated as a Scoring Element out of bounds and returned to the owning Alliance's Pixel Storage at the earliest, safe opportunity.

(Asked by 15259 answer published at September 27th 2023)

Q94 Clarification of rule GS06--Robot stabilization

using height-restricting yellow bars

Q:

According to rule GS06 in section 4.5.3 of GM2, "Contact with the other parts of the Truss is allowed for stabilization of the Robot while Suspended." Does this rule allow the robot to stabilize itself off of the height-restricting yellow bars below the Rigging?

A:

Yes, provided that the Rigging (blue or red pipe) provides the primary support for the Robot per rule GS06.a.

(Asked by 11794 answer published at October 5th 2023)

Q97 Drone launch before end game

Q:

If for some reason our drone was launched accidentally before the end game starts, do we get a penalty?

A:

There is no Penalty for Launching a Drone before the start of the End Game. The Drone is not eligible to earn Landing Zone points per section 4.4.4 in Game Manual Part 2 because it was Launched before the start of the End Game.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

74/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

If the Drone is accessible Inside the Playing Field Boundary, the Robot may try another Drone Scoring attempt per rule GS11.e.

(Asked by 23226 answer published at October 5th 2023)

Q151 Interference while launching a drone

Q:

The rules state that a team may not interfere with the opposing alliance's drone while in flight and the result is the launching team gets 30 points. What happens if an opponent bumps a robot that is in the process of launching (and altering the path of the drone) without actually touching the drone?

A:

The gameplay described in the question is not allowed per rule GS11.g.iii. Drive Teams may not directly or indirectly affect the flight of a Drone. The Robot in this scenario is under control of the Drive Team during all valid Drone launching times, Robot interactions that affect Drone flight are controlled by the Drive Teams yielding indirect Interference.

(Asked by 5218 answer published at November 2nd 2023)

Q155 Clarification on Q78 robot suspension only

during buzzer sound

Q:

In GM Part 2: 4.4.4 - 1. Robot Location – There are two mutually exclusive location-based Scoring opportunities,

<if> Robot Location is Scored at End of the Period Q1: Is it accurate to say that as long as the robot is obviously suspended at some point during the end of match buzzer it should be scored as a suspend? Q2: Or must the robot have begun its suspension by the 2:00 mark which is defined as end of period?

A:

A1: Yes, provided that the Robot does not start Suspending before the End Game Period begins.

A2: A Robot is not required to be Suspended before the 2:00 minute time mark.

(Asked by 16750 answer published at November 1st 2023)

Q166 Clarification on Q155 for robot that begins

climb after timer hits 0:00

Q:

The answers to Q18 and Q78 make sense to me, but Q155 seems confusing related to a match I saw on webcast.

A robot was still touching the ground at 0:00 when the buzzer started and the robot only left the floor while the buzzer was sounding. The definition of "Scored at the End of the Period" makes me think this would not count as a suspended robot, but Q155 makes me think it might.

A:

Thank you for identifying the inconsistency between the answers to Q18 (/qa/18) and Q155 (/qa/155) . Q18

(/qa/18) was updated on November 6, 2023 to include the end of Match scoring system buzzer length is a "grace period" for completing the End Game Suspension task.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

75/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

(Asked by 10723 answer published at November 8th 2023)

Q174 Drone Accidentally Hits Human Player

Q:

What happens if the drone accidentally hits one of the human players and lands in Zone 1?

A:

The Drone in this scenario has zero Score value. Rule GS11.g.iii does not apply.

(Asked by 15036 answer published at November 9th 2023)

Q175 Suspending prior to end game

Q:

A robot begins to suspend before the start of the end game period. The drive team realizes their error, returns their robot to the ground and then begins and completes their suspend during the end game portion of the match. How is this scenario scored?

A:

The consequence for starting the Suspension task early is described in Section 4.4.4 in Game Manual Part 2: " End Game achievements, other than Navigating, begun before the start of End Game are worth zero (0) points".

The Robot in this scenario may regain its eligibility for the Suspension task by lowering itself to the Playing Field Floor and disengaging from the Rigging.

Note: Disengaging from the Rigging must be obvious and unambiguous.

(Asked by 20077 answer published at November 9th 2023)

Q219 Hook Placement Prior to End Game

Q:

Can a hook in a non-weight bearing mode be placed on the rigging prior to end game and once end game begins then have a winch activate to start using the hook then to bear the weight of the robot to suspend it?

A:

No, the Robot in this scenario is not eligible to earn points for being Suspended because it began the Scoring task before the start of the End Game.

The Robot in this scenario may regain its eligibility for the Suspension task by removing the hook from the Rigging.

(Asked by 6168 answer published at December 4th 2023)

Q230 Re-inspected drones exceeding height limit

again

Q:

During a competition, we were observing some drones going over the 5 foot limit as stated in RG07. However, after passing the re-inspection, we were wondering what happens after the re-inspected drones go over the 5 foot https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

76/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

limit again? Since RG07 is a robot inspection rule, we're worried that this would mean using an illegal component, which might be interpreted as an I01 violation, resulting in disqualification

A:

We believe Q233 (/qa/233) answers your question. If it does not, please rephrase your question and resubmit.

As long as the Team is working with the event volunteers (referees, inspectors, etc.) to resolve the rule RG07

violations, the Head Referee is unlikely to Penalize or issue a Yellow Card for repeated incidents.

(Asked by 16750 answer published at December 19th 2023)

Q233 Penalties for Drone Parking beyond Landing

Zone 3

Q:

Q1: Based on rule RG07, how would the following be judged with regards to penalties, including yellow cards for repeated incidents as per C03? We understand that 0 points would be earned in all cases: Q2: A launched Drone is in flight for less than 18', contacts the ground in LZ3, but slides and Parks at a location beyond LZ3 but less than 18' from the launch point. Q3: Same as 1, but Parks beyond 18' from the launch point. Q4: A launched Drone flies less than 18', but lands just past LZ3?

A:

A1: As long as the Team is working with the event volunteers (referees, inspectors, etc.) to resolve the rule RG07

violations, the Head Referee is unlikely to Penalize or issue a Yellow Card for repeated incidents.

A2: No Penalty.

A3: No Penalty, the 18 foot maximum trajectory length is the distance the Drone travels in the air. The added distance due to sliding, bouncing, etc, does not count towards the rule RG07 maximum trajectory length.

A4: No Penalty.

(Asked by 7842 answer published at December 13th 2023)

Q253 GS06 and a Disabled Robot G07

Q:

From our last meet: A blue robot broke down under the red alliance rigging. 1 red robot was suspended but the disabled robot obstructed access for the second red robot. G07 indicates that robot failure does not incur penalties unless specified in a GS rule. GS06<d> does not specify that a disabled robot will be penalized for impeding a suspension. Could GS06<d> be considered to allow for disabled penalty? It seems unfair that a team could not score their end-game points for tie-break 2.

A:

Thank you for the clear description of your concern. You have a correct understanding of how to apply rule G07 to this gameplay scenario.

The Game Design Committee (GDC) considered this scenario when the rules were written and they decided not to create an exception to rule G07. The GDC discussed your request during our regular weekly meeting and decided not to change the rules.

(Asked by 16617 answer published at January 2nd 2024)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

77/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q267 Additional clarification to Q66 on possession of

multiple drones

Q:

Q66 Addresses if Blue team drone inadvertently flies into or gets caught up in a Red team robot. Can you also clarify if Red Robot 1 launches a drone and it gets caught in partner Red 2 Robot. Will Red 2 immediately have to fire THEIR drone to not be possessing 2 drones at once and therefore penalized or is this also considered inadvertent? We had a practice round where it fired into their alliance robot and was caught up inside the robot inadvertently.

A:

The answer to Q66 (/qa/66) applies to this situation with the additional constraint that the Robot may not attempt to Score their Alliance partner's Drone.

From Q66 (/qa/66) : No Penalty should be assessed for this Inadvertent gameplay scenario.

The inadvertently Possessed Drone does not count towards the Robot's one (1) Drone Control/Possession limit (GS05.a). The Robot may continue normal gameplay; trying to "shake off" the stray Drone is not required.

(Asked by 9225 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q270 Drone hitting audience-side wall

Q:

If the drone hits the top of the wall closest to the audience before landing, does it score?

A:

Yes, if the Drone Parks In a Landing Zone.

(Asked by 23418 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q279 Field and Landing Zone Definitions

Q:

A legal drone that passed inspection and was launched in accordance with the rules flies over the perimeter wall and hits landing zone 1 but bounces back towards the perimeter wall frame (tournament was using VEX walls) and partially lands within the wall itself and landing zone one. Does this drone get scored as landing zone one or not scored because the drone is partially within the outside of the outside edge of the extrusion that holds the playing field Wall panels?

A:

Yes, the Drone in this scenario is eligible to earn points for being Parked In a Landing Zone as an exception to rule GS11.h.

(Asked by 11206 answer published at January 16th 2024)

Q287 Robot interference in end game

Q:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

78/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

During the end game a red alliance robot is attempting a drone launch and suspending at the same time a blue alliance robot bumps them. Q1: Do they get the 30 points for the drone parking task? Q2: Do they get points for suspending too?

A:

A1: This question describes the same gameplay scenario as Q151 (/qa/151) . Yes, if the referee believes that the Robot contact affected the Drone, rule GS11.g.iii is violated and the Drone will receive Landing Zone 1 points (30

points). For example, contact directly before the Drone is Launched should be considered as affecting the flight of the Drone.

From Q151 (/qa/151) : "The gameplay described in the question is not allowed per rule GS11.g.iii. Drive Teams may not directly or indirectly affect the flight of a Drone. The Robot in this scenario is under control of the Drive Team during all valid Drone launching times, Robot interactions that affect Drone flight are controlled by the Drive Teams yielding indirect Interference."

A2: Yes, if the Robot satisfies the requirements for being Suspended. Depending on the timing of the contact, the blue Alliance Robot may receive rule GS06.d and/or GS06.e consequences.

(Asked by 130 answer published at January 23rd 2024)

Q289 Clarification on Q18

Q:

After reading Q18, I still experienced confusion among coaches and referees about the need of match sequence.

Q18 defines the end of match buzzer as a ‘grace period’ in which robots can still complete the suspension task, but I have had coaches say that a team needs to have begun the suspension task before the match timer reads 0:00.

Q1: Is this true? Q2: i.e. can a robot be not touching the rigging at 0:00 but then score the suspension bonus if it is suspended by the end of the buzzer?

A:

A1: No

A2: Yes

(Asked by 13312 answer published at January 23rd 2024)

Q333 Hanging on opposing alliance rigging

Q:

Q1: During the endgame if a robot suspends on an opposing alliance rigging does this violate GS06.d? Q2: Even if the correct alliance does not engage with the rigging (to prevent touching a hanging robot)? Q3: How close must the correct robot be to show that they are prevented from suspending by the opposing alliance?

A:

A1: The Robot in this scenario has violated rules GS06.a and GS06.b. Rule GS06.d is not violated because the scenario does not involve an opposing Alliance Robot.

A2: The referee watching gameplay will make the rule GS06.d determination if the Suspended Robot on the incorrect Rigging impedes or obstructs an opposing Alliance Robot from Suspending during the End Game. The opposing Alliance Robot is not required to engage with the Rigging nor touch the Suspended Robot to trigger a rule GS06.d violation.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

79/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A3: A2 applies, plus there is no required minimum distance between Robots that automatically triggers a rule GS06.d violation. The opposing Alliance Robot's actions should be obvious and unambiguous to signal that their intent to Suspend is affected by the Robot that is Suspended on the incorrect Rigging.

(Asked by 7078 answer published at February 14th 2024)

Q348 Robot using yellow bars for bracing while

suspending/clarification of Q94 & Q271

Q:

A referee's interpretation of GS06.a was that although our robot was braced against the yellow bars for

"stabilization" and off of the ground, if the yellow bars were removed the robot would touch the ground and our hang would therefore not be legal. Our interpretation is that the robot is still using a hook to suspend itself from the rigging and legally pivoting/stabilizing around the yellow bars. Which interpretation is correct?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JeeHBy_jh2MSIgK0O8AYhlHWnKnrI0P5

A:

The Robot in the photo appears to receive impactful vertical support from its contact with the yellow bar. The Robot should not receive points for Suspending per rule GS06.a.

(Asked by 5356 answer published at March 7th 2024)

Traditional – Competition Rules

Q113 Ranking Calculations

Q:

How calculate the ranking of teams in the competition? is it the same of previous season? (By how many matches did the team win or by points?)

A:

The answer you seek is located in section 5.0 of Game Manual Part 1 - both Traditional and Remote.

(Asked by 21417 answer published at October 18th 2023)

Q133 Outside home region league event rule

Q:

May a team participate in another region's league events and their State Championship, if the home region has only the State Championship event? Understand that teams can only advance from their home region and can participate in one league tournament.

A:

A team can participate in a League outside their region, provided that is the only League they participate in. A team may not advance from a League Tournament to a Regional Championship that is outside of their region unless the Program Delivery Partners in both regions have agreed to move a team to a new region for the entire season.

(Asked by 12611 answer published at November 1st 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

80/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q285 Is there a limitation as to who can be the drive

team coach?

Q:

Must it be a student or can a mentor/coach/parent be the drive team coach as well?

A:

The Drive Team Coach is a Student or an adult mentor from the same Team. In section 4.3 of the Game Manual Part 2, Coach is defined as "A Student Team member or adult mentor designated as the Drive Team advisor during the Match and identified by wearing a Coach badge or identifying marker".

(Asked by 23732 answer published at January 24th 2024)

Q286 Alliance Selection - Different Rules for a State

Q:

At our last competition, our region declared they had new “Region Specific Alliance Selection Rules” which stated that the first seed could not choose the second seed. Is it allowed for a region to change the rules in only that region? We have our league tournament coming up soon and want to have a clear answer in case they use the region specific rules again.

A:

All Matches at a scrimmage and all Elimination Matches at a league meet are not considered official play and may follow different rules at the event host's discretion.

Elimination Matches at your league Tournament or other official Tournament should always follow all official FIRST

Tech Challenge Rules--there are no sanctioned local Alliance selection rules. Please work with your local program delivery partner if you have questions or concerns about the specific enforcement of Tournament rules at your event.

(Asked by 17036 answer published at January 24th 2024)

Q290 How Are "Best Matches" Defined For League

Ranking

Q:

In Game Manual Part 1 Section 5.1, what is the definition of "top ten matches"? For example, let's say that a team has played 15 matches in their league. They have won 10 of them. They have an RP of 2.0. Let's say they had 20

pts in auto for each of those matches won, however, they scored 40 pts in auto in one match they lost and 0 pts for the rest of the matches. Would TBP1 be 20 pts (consisting of matches they won) or 22 pts (from best autonomous score matches, regardless of win/loss)?

A:

The 10 best Matches are chosen such that they maximize the Team's Ranking. That is, each Match has: 1. Ranking Points

2. TieBreaker Points (TBP1, autonomous score)

3. TieBreaker Points (TBP2, end game score)

4. Match Score (including penalties)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

81/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

The "best" 10 Matches are selected to maximize the Team's rank using the criteria outlined in game manual part 1, as shown above.

For your example, the outcome is that any Match with a win will be ranked higher than a tie/loss, even if the TBP1

is better in a Match that results in a loss (0 RP). It is always more beneficial to have the higher RP than the higher TBP1.

Please see section 5.1.1 in the Game Manual Part 1 for a detailed description of averages, and section 5.2 for League Meet and Tournament Rankings.

(Asked by 5155 answer published at January 25th 2024)

Q305 One-Way Microphone for Video

Q:

If the audio is being used for entertainment purposes only, is the use of one-way microphones allowed for drive team members? For example, are we allowed to put wireless microphones on our drive team that a camera is recording from the stands? In section 3.5 C22 it goes over competition rules in relation to two-way communication being not legal, however but it does not state whether or not one-way communication is allowed for video/entertainment purposes.

A:

The short answer is no. Regardless of the intent of any recorded audio, C10, C12, and C22 still apply.

(Asked by 10173 answer published at February 1st 2024)

Q331 Can the teams and event organizers test the

main playing field by using autonomous opmode?

Q:

Our auto Opmode relies on the accurate detection of April tags on the backboards. For the first few matches, the red/blue alliance backboards were swapped, therefore altering the order of the April tags. This unforeseen issue led to a failure of our autonomous routine, affecting our ranking in the league. Our robot worked on the practice field, but we couldn't test it on the main field due to current rules. Therefore, we are suggesting a test during the field inspection.

A:

We apologize that this mix-up impacted your team, as well as other teams at your event. FIRST Tech Challenge volunteers strive to ensure that teams have the best experience possible.

Where field inspections take place is up to the tournament director. There are multiple factors that play into where inspections take place (either practice or competition fields) including timing of event setup, logistics of the location of pits to the designated inspection location, etc.

If a team notices an error in field setup, it is perfectly acceptable, and encouraged, for the team to get the Head Referee or Field Technical Advisor involved.

If the error on the field is not discovered until after match play has begun, the Head Referee and/or FTA should be notified to fix the field. It is up to the discretion of the Head Referee to determine if matches should be replayed.

(Asked by 14969 answer published at February 15th 2024)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

82/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Traditional – Playing Field Setup

Q31 Are there any solutions/future plans to ensure

metal field elements are grounded?

Q:

The middle metal poles holding the truss, rigging, and stage door seem to have no way of electrically grounding themselves to outside of the field, so when metal on the robot touches these elements, there is a static discharge that cannot be avoided by teams. <RG01> i) states robots cannot ground themselves to the playing field, and a grounding strap doesn't help. Will there be any rules that ensure competition fields are set up to remove static build-up on these poles?

A:

This may come as a shock (pun intended), but grounding the field may have the opposite effect that you intend. By grounding certain elements of the field you virtually guarantee that ESD shocks will be more intense and more frequent, as there will almost always be a large difference in potential between any floating object sliding/moving on the field (robot, game pieces, etc...) and the grounded elements. Understand also that the common wisdom of

“touching metal” also doesn’t apply the same as it may have 5-6 years ago either - realize that virtually all aluminum extrusion on robots today is anodized, which is an electrically non-conducting coating on the extrusion.

Older Tetrix anodized aluminum seems to have a thinner anodized layer, so it wears/scratches/rubs off more easily, and thus it was more likely that the aluminum would be electrically conductive and charge-accessible. This means you're not able to consistently rely on "metal" to "electrically connect" areas around the robot (i.e. thinking of the frame as a “wire” isn’t as applicable). Also the grounding strap is not meant to "ground" your robot, it's meant to attempt to equalize the potential between your electronics and areas of static build-up on the robot that the strap is connected to so that when ESD does happen the charge potential is hopefully small and thus has little to no effect. The Managing ESD (https://ftc-

docs.firstinspires.org/en/latest/hardware_and_software_configuration/configuring/managing_esd/managing-

esd.html) article on ftc-docs has several recommendations for how teams can protect their robots. No one solution

is a silver bullet, though, careful attention is key!

You’ve asked about what event organizers are doing to reduce ESD buildup on the fields. Heavy Duty Staticide is a staple for treating fields, especially those that are at high risk for static charge buildup like areas with extremely low humidity. This Heavy Duty Staticide has been proven to be extremely effective at significantly reducing (or eliminating) static charge buildup.

(Asked by 18362 answer published at September 24th 2023)

Q87 Field "April Tags"

Q:

When we printed off the field "April Tags" at 100% on our printer, they did not measure 2" and 5" square, respectively. So we printed them off at 106%, and the sizes were correct, but the right (Tag ID: 10) and left (Tag ID: 7) dashed edges of the graphics were cut off. Does this matter?

A:

Good job verifying the AprilTag size! All printers print differently, so this is a great pointer to all teams to verify the printed area for your printer. The dotted lines themselves are not critical to the detection of the AprilTags, they're there mostly as an indicator of the recommended whitespace around the tag. In our testing as long as there is still https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

83/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

at least 50% of the whitespace remaining on the truncated side of the black square of the AprilTag body (compare the whitespace on the truncated side with the other sides) there should be no problem.

(Asked by 12168 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

Q144 Landing Zone In Venues

Q:

We host in a venue with a stage. The stage is slightly larger than the Playing Field Floor. The Landing Zone will cause us difficulties in hosting. Does the Landing Zone have to be a flat ground or could we erect nets that are placed with PVC pipe at the correct distances. For instance, at 24" there would be a net with the top level with the field. This would allow the Drone to hit it and fall down in the correct zone. Or is it required we build an extension to the stage for the landing zone?

A:

The use of nets, either vertically or horizontally placed, would go against the intent of the challenge.

1. Vertical nets would trap/capture drones inside a landing zone.

2. Horizontal nets allow the drones to be "caught" in the net.

An option would be to look over the venue layout and decide if the stage is the best option for the field, or if there may be a better space within the venue to accommodate the landing zones without the need to build an extension.

If not, an extension off the stage may be built to accommodate the landing zones. We recommend placing field personnel (not referees) near the locations where stage and the extension zone meet so that no one walks on the extension. Stanchions or another deterrent from the audience approaching the landing zones should be a consideration to ensure audience members are not accidentally hit with launched drones.

(Asked by 5155 answer published at November 9th 2023)

Q161 What are the lines at the front of field where

pixels are stacked callled?

Q:

The team is working on programming and wants to have all the correct terms. We were wondering what the front white tape lines are called where the pixels are stacked?

A:

There is no official name for those lines. If you must call them something, use "On-field Pixel Stack lines."

(Asked by 130 answer published at November 7th 2023)

Q200 Playing Field Under-Tile Strap Setup

Q:

Q1: Must field straps on a competition Playing Field be set up according to manufacturer's directions? With an AndyMark Field, for example, must the 2 straps be set up as indicated in AndyMark's "FIRST Tech Challenge Field Perimeter Setup Guide?" This matters because the hooks on the Field edge push the tile up unevenly, so an inconsistent auto/driving experience exists between fields with differing setups. Q2: If field straps or perimeters are set up incorrectly, may Teams request it be fixed?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

84/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

Thank you for pointing out the impact of the under-tile strap on the foam tiles and the importance of having consistency across all Playing Fields.

A1: Please follow the instructions in the CENTERSTAGE Field Setup Guide

(https://firstinspiresst01.blob.core.windows.net/first-in-show-ftc/field-assembly-and-setup-guide.pdf) for where to place the under tile straps (a little off-center). The document was recently updated on 12/7/23.

A2: If Teams see that the field is set up incorrectly, they may request it be fixed. Keep in mind the rule G12

constraints for Playing Field access.

(Asked by 8672 answer published at December 14th 2023)

Q203 Pipe height minimum

Q:

The game manual 2 C-6 Truss and Rigging (pdf page 36) shows the fixed yellow pipe height to be "~14", allowing some height variation. But how much? 1/8"? 1/4"? 1"? 3"? Can FIRST provide a required minimum height so teams can be sure their robots will travel under the fixed pipe? This is especially important at tournaments where field inspection can be done before matches.

A:

We believe that the answers you are looking for can be found by reading and understanding G08 and the explanatory orange box below it in Game Manual Part 2.

The specification for the yellow bar height is approximately 14". Applying the tolerances would suggest that a team should expect possible variations in the height of the yellow bars. Teams should take into account the risks that come with not paying attention to these potential variations.

As is mentioned in the orange box, events strive to setup and maintain a much more accurate setup/placement of their fields and game elements, but teams should take the tolerances into consideration when designing and building their robots.

(Asked by 6567 answer published at November 30th 2023)

Q228 Changing playing field game element sides

during elimination matches

Q:

Hello, during this past week's regional the backdrops on the fields each have a different shape to them just due to the plastic and no bracing across the back. The inwards bow is a distinct advantage to pixels staying on the board vs outwards. We fully understand the tolerances of the field but later in the season I would ask FIRST to consider Red to Blue backdrop swap between elimination matches to ensure that neither team has a field advantage. There is time between matches to do so.

A:

The suggested red/blue Backdrop swap between elimination Matches is not allowed. The red and blue Backdrops are not interchangeable due to AprilTag differences.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

85/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A Backdrop with a game changing shortcoming such as significant damage or incorrect assembly should be repaired or replaced before playing the next Match. A "small inwards bow" in a Backdrop Scoring Area is likely to be viewed by the Head Referee as normal variation caused by manufacturing and assembly tolerances that does not require repair or replacement for Match play to continue.

(Asked by 9225 answer published at December 13th 2023)

Q239 Drone landing zone floor material - Team

provided

Q:

Are we able to bring with us extra field tiles so that we could put them on the drone landing zone? This way, throughout all of the matches, we would have a consistent landing zone for our drone.

A:

No. Teams are not allowed to bring Landing Zone floor material to be used at the event. Please refer to the answer on Q209 (/qa/209) for further details.

(Asked by 18766 answer published at December 14th 2023)

Q247 Can fields at competitions be sprayed before

matches with team provided anti-static spray?

Q:

If a team provides the Event Host, FTA or Regional Director at an FTC event with anti-static spray, is there precedent for the FTA (or other field staff) to spray the field before matches? Our team has severe issues with static, while using the grounding strap, and our FTA at our competition today (12/16/23 NJ) told us to ask this specific question because our fields have very bad static at every competition in the winter. See 'Managing Electrostatic Discharge Effects' on FTC Docs for precedent.

A:

Spraying the playing field tiles is an Event Host decision, regardless of who provides the anti-static spray. The Event Host may use FIRST recommended antistatic spray provided by any supplier they choose.

Bonus Information:

1) Is your robot ESD protected? We suggest reviewing the guidance in "Managing Electrostatic Discharge Effects"

(https://ftc-

docs.firstinspires.org/en/latest/hardware_and_software_configuration/configuring/managing_esd/managing-

esd.html?highlight=%22Managing%20Electrostatic%20Discharge%20Effects) on FTC Docs.

2) Have you thoroughly inspected your wiring to look for damaged insulation? Pay special attention to sensor and servo wires.

3) Are any power cable connections loose? For example, are the Control or Expansion Hub X30 Ports

compressed? (https://docs.revrobotics.com/duo-control/troubleshooting-the-control-system/control-hub-

troubleshooting#xt30-pins-are-compressed)

(Asked by 17036 answer published at December 19th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

86/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q248 Uneven floor tiles

Q:

Should there be any consideration for the playing field tiles to mesh properly, be level and not have teeth projecting upwards in places? Since the game this year involves picking up / dropping pixels from / onto the floor, seems like a great disadvantage to teams using an intake mechanism that needs to be close to the floor or pushing pixels across the field. We understand this might be within the allowed tolerances and therefore maybe nothing can be done about it. Just looking for guidance.

A:

Yes, Tiles should be set up uniformly. If you notice an unexpected Playing Field setup condition, immediately notify a referee or an FTA so that they can address the issue.

Note: For AndyMark Playing Field Walls, the Tile bulge caused by the under- Tile straps is an expected and allowed part of a correctly set up Playing Field.

(Asked by 4327 answer published at December 21st 2023)

Q322 Additional signage on audience wall distracting

vision sensors?

Q:

At our recent event, competition fields had 8.5x11 signs on the transparent audience wall identifying "Field 1"/"Field 2". The backs of the signs create a large white area visible through the wall that can confuse Robot Vision Sensors detecting white game elements (pixels/white tape). Are the signs "allowed field variance"? We recognize that other white objects might be visible through the alliance wall (and robots should allow for this); our question is specific to directly-attached signs.

A:

Event Personnel, nor teams, should not place signs on the field wall as it may be disruptive to robot sensors on the field. Other ways to identify the field (Field 1, Field 2, etc.) should be used.

(Asked by 7172 answer published at February 8th 2024)

Traditional and Remote – The Judging

Process

Q266 Custom Control Award Form; follow-up to

Q232.

Q:

Does Q232 imply that the control award may take any graphical form or are teams required to adhere to the form published on firstinspires.org? In previous years our team was told we were required to use the template form on firstinspires.org. Q1: Can teams answer the questions listed in the official template using a custom page instead of the one on firstinspires.org? Q2: If teams are allowed to use a custom page, can they deviate from the questions on the official template?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

87/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

Teams are permitted to create their own form, but must at a minimum answer the questions on the official template. Font size must be at least 10pts, and the submission may not exceed 2 8.5x11 pages.

(Asked by 8693 answer published at January 18th 2024)

Q299 Mentor definition for Connect Award

Q:

Q1: What interactions qualify someone as a mentor for the Connect Award? Q2: More specifically, must interactions with professional mentors follow the same standards of repeated communication as team to team mentorship (GM1 appendix F)?

A:

For the Connect Award, a mentor may be someone who assists a team with their robot function and/or design (software, programming, machining parts, etc.), they may assist with project management to help the team with organizational skills. These are just a few quick examples. The specific requirement is that the adult coach or mentor has provided guidance and support to a team over the course of a season, and demonstrates to the team gracious professionalism in their demeanor and behavior. There are no additional guidelines for this award.

(Asked by 12087 answer published at February 15th 2024)

Q307 Bringing additional mechanisms or parts of

robots for judging

Q:

Game manual 1 <C05> states that "Each registered Team may enter only one Robot". Is it legal for teams to bring additional parts, mechanisms, or robots to show judges their iteration process, so long as they only enter one robot in the competition?

A:

If the team would like to show unique parts or mechanisms of the robot, and those mechanisms are not being used at the current competition, those may be brought to be used as a visual aide. Otherwise, teams can use pictures, video, or animations to show past iterations of their robot without needing to bring a secondary robot.

(Asked by 21336 answer published at February 20th 2024)

Traditional and Remote– Engineering

Portfolio

Q232 Custom Control Award submission

Q:

Are Custom control award submissions created on programs such as Canva, Adobe Illustrator or other graphic design programs allowed or must control award submissions be submitted on the form published on firstinspires.org?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

88/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

The use of programs such as Canva and Adobe Illustrator are allowed.

(Asked by 20403 answer published at December 21st 2023)

Traditional and Remote – Judges Interview

Q310 Bringing an additional robot to competition

solely for judging demonstration purposes

Q:

According to <C05>, each registered team is only allowed to bring one robot to a competition. However, our team would like to bring an additional (completely different) robot solely for the purpose of demonstrating during judging with zero intention of competing with it. Q1: Are we allowed to do this? Under what conditions of the robot would we be able to do this? Q2: If the answer to Q1 is no, is there any way we'd still be able to bring parts of our robot to the competition?

A:

A team cannot bring an entire second robot to a competition. If the team would like to show unique parts or mechanisms of the robot, and those mechanisms are not being used at the current competition, those may be brought to be used as a visual aide. Otherwise, teams can use pictures, video, or animations to show past iterations of their robot without needing to bringing a secondary robot.

(Asked by 11138 answer published at February 8th 2024)

Traditional – Advancement

Q45 6.1 Eligibility for Advancement: Home Region

Q:

Tennessee Valley Robotics sponsors a State Championship in Tennessee and Alabama. There are the only advancement competitions in Tennessee and Alabama. Can teams in the Tennessee Valley region compete in both the Tennessee and Alabama State Championship for advancement to World and the Inspire Award?

A:

Per the eligibility for advancement criteria outlined in section 6.1 of the Game Manual Part 1, teams may only advance from events within their home region. Teams may still compete in events outside of their home region, but are not eligible for advancement.

Teams competing outside of their home region are eligible to be judged for all awards except for the Inspire award.

For all awards except Inspire, teams may be considered a finalist or winner of the award but are not eligible to advance. Teams are not eligible for consideration for the Inspire award, including 2nd and 3rd place Inspire spots, outside of their home region.

(Asked by 21457 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

89/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q114 Eligibility for Advancement

Q:

If there is a team competing in a region other than its home region, it cannot qualify for the World Championship, but if a team from the home region allies with it and they win the final match, does this qualify it to qualify for the World Championship instead?

A:

If a team is part of the winning alliance at an event outside of their home region, this does not qualify the team for advancement. The advancement spots available would skip over the out of home region team to the next eligible advancing team within the home region.

(Asked by 21417 answer published at October 18th 2023)

Traditional and Remote – Team Prop

Construction Rules

Q15 Are light blue and pink legal Prop colors?

Q:

TE02 says that the TGE (Prop) may include multiple shades of the assigned color, but can the Prop be made entirely of a shade of the assigned color? So, could a Prop be light blue or pink since those are shades of blue and red?

A:

Yes, light blue and pink are acceptable colors providing it is obvious to the field personnel which alliance the Team Prop belongs to.

(Asked by 16626 answer published at September 20th 2023)

Q73 RM06 and the Prop

Q:

Is it correct to conclude that RM06 does not constrain (the design or construction of) the prop?

A:

Yes, Rule RM06 applies to the Team Prop. Note that RM06 should be interpreted as pertaining only to the previous season's game elements (Power Play), not every game element from every FTC game.

(Asked by 18996 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

Q77 Can a Team Prop have retroreflective tape as

part of its construction?

Q:

TE02 specifies the Team Prop must be Red or Blue. TE03 disallows fiducial markers. Can a Team Prop incorporate red- or blue-colored retroreflective tape in its construction, or does that count as a fiducial marker?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

90/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

Per Rule TE03, a Team Prop may not have any retroreflective materials.

(Asked by 10723 answer published at October 5th 2023)

Q79 Solo cups as Team Prop

Q:

Are Solo, or other disposable cups allowed to be used as team props this year. In Game Manual 1, Section 7.4.

there is no mention of not using Solo or other cups. I recall last year they were not allowed due to many teams using them in Freight Frenzy. Additionally, <RM06> Current Season Game and Scoring Elements does not disallow them either

A:

Drinking cups in general are allowed providing they meet all the other Team Prop requirements, specifically size and uniform color. Many cups have a solid exterior color but are white inside. To be used in a Match, the cup would have to be oriented such that no white is visible, i.e. open side down. The cup would have to be inspected in the same orientation it will be used on the field.

(Asked by 20077 answer published at October 5th 2023)

Q110 Can Team number on Team Prop be printed on

white background?

Q:

Game Manual 1 says Team Prop has to be of solid color of red or blue, except for Team number. So is it ok we print team number on a piece of white paper then stick it onto the team prop?

A:

No, the only non-alliance color on the Team Prop can be the numbers themselves.

(Asked by 23226 answer published at October 12th 2023)

Q118 Team Prop size

Q:

Can the Team Prop be cone or cylinder or water cup of base radius and its height more than 3" but less than 4"?

A:

Yes, a cone shaped Game Element with a base between 3" and 4" in diameter and between 3" and 4" tall meets TE04.

(Asked by 23305 answer published at October 17th 2023)

Q120 Glitter PETG for team prop?

Q:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

91/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

The team prop can not be retroreflective. We 3D print a prop using PETG red transparent with glitter. It does not return a light beam back to it's source. Is this acceptable to use? The glitter in the filament is reflective but it is not retroreflective per the definition of "Retroreflection occurs when a surface returns a large portion of directed light beam back to its source. Retroreflective materials appear brightest to observers nearest the light source"

A:

No, this is not a legal material. Red transparent PETG with metal flake does not satisfy rule TE02 for being a uniform color.

(Asked by 20349 answer published at October 17th 2023)

Q140 Team Numbers on Team Prop

Q:

I see that in <TE05> b &c, team numbers must be no more than 0.5 inch in height. and may only appear on the team prop one time. It looks like this rule may apply to team numbers that are on the team prop in a color other than red or blue. If the team has designed & 3D printed a team prop that includes their team number as a part of the 3D print (i.e. completely red or blue 3D printed material), and the team number is larger than 0.5 and/or appears more than one time, would that be acceptable?

A:

3D printed numbers must follow the same rules as any other method. Therefore, a Team Prop that includes their team number as part of the 3D print and is larger than .5 inch or appears more than once is not allowed.

(Asked by 9848 answer published at October 26th 2023)

Q160 Can we use previous years game elements

Q:

Team props are required to match the team alliance (red or blue). Could we use a game element from a previous year that is already colored red and blue as our team prop provided that it fits within the 4x4x4 sizing range for team props?

A:

We believe Q73 answers your question. If it does not, please rephrase your question and resubmit.

(Asked by 19591 answer published at November 7th 2023)

Q176 Can the team prop have holes in it?

Q:

If the team prop is 3D printed and all one solid color (red or blue) can the prop have holes in it? For instance a 4x4

inch cube with the team numbers cut out all the way through the cube?

A:

Yes, A Team Prop may have holes in it. Remember, the Team Number must abide by Rule TE05.

(Asked by 22523 answer published at November 9th 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

92/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q182 Can team props be different based on the

alliance colors?

Q:

Our team wants to use a different team prop based on whether we are on the red or blue alliance for each match.

Assuming the team props meet all of the other requirements and both are inspected, is it legal to use two different shaped team props based on the alliance color?

A:

There is no rule requiring that the red and blue Team Props be the same design. All Team Props must pass Inspection prior to use in a match.

(Asked by 18119 answer published at November 14th 2023)

Q192 Team prop patterns

Q:

What patterns are allowed on the team prop? I know we can't have qr codes and ARUCO codes. But are patterns of lines or circles allowed? As long as they are a shade of red or blue of course

A:

Based on the feedback we have received from Teams and volunteers we are clarifying and relaxing the restrictions on the types of images that are allowed on the Team Prop. The intent of rule TE03b is: 1. prevent the use of any object on the field that could confuse or distract other Robots.

2. prevent the use of canned solutions to simplify the task of object identification.

Therefore, any image that resembles a QR code, AprilTag, or coded vision target is not allowed. All other images such as team logos, sponsor logos, raised areas, cut outs, etc. are allowed, providing no other rule is violated.

(Asked by 18035 answer published at November 16th 2023)

Q194 Team prop for blue side can be purple?

Q:

Can our team prop for the blue side be a shade of purple? How about if our Team prop for the red side is pink?

A:

Purple is not an acceptable color for the blue side Team Prop.

(Asked by 20077 answer published at November 16th 2023)

Q204 Team Prop Design

Q:

As an extension to some Team Prop Questions. Q1:If a 3d printed team prop is designed to look like a cute cartoon robot, may it have eyes engraved/extruded in it since Q176 allows for holes in team props, or would those be considered fiduciary markers as per Q197? Q2:Are decorative designs engraved/extruded into a prop allowed if not used for vision control?

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

93/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

A:

The answers to Q192 and 197 have been updated as follows.

Based on the feedback we have received from Teams and volunteers we are clarifying and relaxing the restrictions on the types of images that are allowed on the Team Prop. The intent of rule TE03b is: 1. prevent the use of any object on the field that could confuse or distract other Robots.

2. prevent the use of canned solutions to simplify the task of object identification.

Therefore, any image that resembles a QR code, AprilTag, or coded vision target is not allowed. All other images such as team logos, sponsor logos, raised areas, cut outs, etc. are allowed, providing no other rule is violated.

A1: Yes this would be legal.

A2: Yes, engraved/extruded designs are allowed provided they do not violate the requirements outlined above.

(Asked by 15259 answer published at November 30th 2023)

Q212 Team Numbers and definition of height

Q:

<TE05> b) The Team number may be no more than 0.5 inches (1.27 cm) in height. The formal definition of height is: the distance from the bottom to the top of something, the distance upward from a given level to a fixed point, or something measured vertically. Is a 3D-printed cylinder with numbers raised by ~0.25" on the top face be considered legal height for TE05 subrule (b) where a box of dims ~0.75" x ~2.0" would enclose the numbers as viewed from above?

A:

Rule TE05 b refers to the height of the text from the bottom edge of the number to the top edge of the number as viewed perpendicular to the text. The rule does not restrict the distance that a number is extruded from a surface.

When viewed from above, the numbers must fit into a box no larger than .5" height. The length of the box is dependent on the number of digits in your team number and is not restricted.

(Asked by 519 answer published at November 29th 2023)

Q213 Regarding Team Prop patterns

Q:

In Q192 and Q197, it was noted that patterns, logos, or images are prohibited as fidicuial markers under TE03. We are wondering specifically if this will affect our team props depending on the interpretation of "pattern". We want to ask if this ruling will apply to the circular indentations on our props, which are cubes that have indentations placed on each side to make them look like 6-sided dice (DICE is our team name).

A:

The answers to Q192 and Q197 have been updated as follows: Based on the feedback we have received from Teams and volunteers we are clarifying and relaxing the restrictions on the types of images that are allowed on the Team Prop. The intent of rule TE03b is:

1. prevent the use of any object on the field that could confuse or distract other Robots.

2. prevent the use of canned solutions to simplify the task of object identification.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

94/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Therefore, any image that resembles a QR code, AprilTag, or coded vision target is not allowed. All other images such as team logos, sponsor logos, raised areas, cut outs, etc. are allowed, providing no other rule is violated.

A Team Prop made as you described is legal providing all other rules are met.

(Asked by 5126 answer published at November 30th 2023)

Q235 Prop color shade vs. tint

Q:

Game Rule TE02 - ...Team Game Element may include multiple shades of the assigned color. A shade of a color is a primary hue color with black added (color will be darker than the original). A tint of a color is a primary color with white added (color will be lighter than the original). Since Q15 answer was yes that light colors (light blue and pink) are allowed, does the rule mean tint (lighter colors) or shade (darker colors) of red or blue?

A:

Both lighter shades and darker shades of red or blue are allowed for the Team Prop as long as the colors can be clearly distinguished by field personnel as being red or blue.

(Asked by 20079 answer published at December 14th 2023)

Q263 Team Game Element Number Location

Q:

Our team game element is a mug, and has the team number inside the mug. It meets the 1/2 inch height requirement, and is visible from 12 inches away. Our robot inspector was not sure if it was legal, due to it only being visible when looking down into the mug. We figured it was fine since it is for non-gameplay identification purposes only. Do we need to move our team number?

A:

You are correct that the Team Number is only required for non-gameplay purposes. Having the team number inside the mug or even on the bottom is acceptable.

(Asked by 18119 answer published at January 9th 2024)

Q280 Team prop size and orientation

Q:

If a 4 inch cube is bisected along the plane passing through opposite edges, and we take a resulting half of the cube (so that two opposing faces are right triangles with adjacent edges of length 4, two faces are 4 inch squares, and the 5th face is a 4 * sqrt(2) by 4 rectangle, is this a legal team prop shape if (A) if the prop is placed with the 4

inch square down, or (B) the prop is placed with the rectangle with length 4 * sqrt(2) down?

A:

A1: Yes, in this orientation the Team Prop is legal. A2: No, in this orientation the Team Prop is illegal.

(Asked by 14343 answer published at January 18th 2024)

Q283 Team Prop - Team Number

Q:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

95/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Our team props are solid red and blue 3D printed objects with the team number depressed in the object at .5

inches. Can we color in our team number with a with black sharpie or could we color in the team number with a different shade of red or blue on the respective red and blue objects?

A:

Yes, the numbers may be colored in with a Sharpie. Black or any other color is acceptable.

(Asked by 11848 answer published at January 18th 2024)

Q301 Is it allowed to have two different sets of team

props?

Q:

Our team found that our object detection code works differently under different lighting conditions. One set of props work better for certain lighting conditions and another set of props work better for another lighting conditions. Since we don't know what lighting conditions it will be at the comp, can we bring two sets of props for inspection?

A:

Yes, Teams may bring multiple Props or Drones to an Event for inspection.

(Asked by 23226 answer published at February 1st 2024)

Q304 Team Prop Paper Cylinder

Q:

Can a team prop be a red or blue paper cylinder? Specifically, the top and bottom of the cylinder are open, and not solid (can see through from one side out the other).

A:

Yes, providing it meets the other parameters such as color, size, and Team number. Be aware that a paper cylinder is very fragile and it may get damaged during normal gameplay if a Robot runs into it. Plan to bring plenty of spare to an event.

(Asked by 12126 answer published at February 1st 2024)

Q320 Team Prop with multiple shades

Q:

According to <TE02>, a team prop can include multiple shades of the same color. So, to clarify, does this mean that a red alliance prop can be pink with red dots on them, and it would be legal, or would it need to be entirely one shade?

A:

Multiple shades are allowed but if the dots are intended to be used as fiducial marks they would be illegal per rule TE03.

(Asked by 19411 answer published at February 8th 2024)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

96/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q328 Q320 followup - fiducial markers on team prop

Q:

In your response, you mentioned how <TE03> banned fiducial markers. My question is how you would define fiducial markers? We detect the dots on our team prop by using Hough circle transforms, and they don't look like any of the examples of fiducial markers given (April Tags, QR codes, etc). Since it is just a line of 3 dots, would detecting those as our prop be legal?

A:

Fiducial Markers are objects or patterns intentionally placed in a scene to establish the identity of the scene or objects within the scene. It you want to detect features of the Team Prop, that is fine but if you want to detect something you put on a Team Prop because you can't detect the Team Prop without it, then that's a fiducial. As such, your dots are perfect examples of fiducials.

(Asked by 19411 answer published at February 18th 2024)

Q343 Is there a weight specification for the team

prop?

Q:

Our team was doing a practice match with another team and there was a team prop that weighed 25 pounds, and we are wondering if this is allowed?

A:

No, there is no weight requirement for the Team Prop. However, there is an expectation that Field Personnel can easily and safely move Team Props during Randomization. If the weight of the Prop causes an issue with the field reseters, the Team may not be eligible for the Auto bonus. Also, if the Prop causes an imprint in the Tile that Robots have to drive over, it will be considered field damage. A Team Prop this heavy would also constitute an immovable object on the field that will obstruct Robot travel and would be penalized per rule G29.

(Asked by 10544 answer published at March 7th 2024)

Traditional and Remote – Drone

Construction Rules

Q22 Drone construction by cutting up paper sheet

into smaller parts.

Q:

Rule <DR05> Construction Material Constraints: states - "... The Drone must be made of a single, continuous sheet of paper no larger than a single sheet of 8 ½ x 11 or A4 size uncoated printer paper. ..." Q1: Can the paper size be smaller than the standard Letter/A4 size paper? Q2: Can the paper be cut up to make individual drone parts that are later attached together? Team members thought of an origami airplane that requires multiple separate parts that need to be joined together.

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

97/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q1: Yes, a Drone may be made from a single sheet of paper smaller than a standard letter/A4 sheet. Q2: No, multiple pieces of paper, even if in aggregate they are less than a standard letter/A4 sheet, are not allowed.

(Asked by 23312 answer published at September 21st 2023)

Q33 Notch in drone

Q:

Are we allowed to cut a notch in the drone in order to attach a rubber band, spring or similar device?

A:

There is no rule against cutting a notch in the Drone.

(Asked by 14840 answer published at September 21st 2023)

Q34 Drone Folding Lines

Q:

<DR05> states that we may use a color printer to achieve the required red and blue colors. In the description, it also says "images." Are we also allowed to print folding lines to assist with the construction?

A:

Yes, that is a legal image.

(Asked by 14840 answer published at September 21st 2023)

Q39 do we have to make a paper airplane?

Q:

A drone is defined as a "paper airplane" but it then says that it can be made out of any acceptable building material. Q1) do we have to make it out of paper? Q2) does it have to be in the shape of an airplane?

A:

The rules for Drone construction are spelled out in Game Manual 1 Section 7.5 Q1: See Rule DR05 Q2: See Rule DR02

(Asked by 19591 answer published at September 23rd 2023)

Q74 DR05 Continuous piece

Q:

Would a single, continuous A4 piece of paper, that has a 1" long cut in the center of the paper, such that the paper maintains the same surface area, and remains one piece with continuous edges, meet the requirements of

<DR05> ?

A:

Yes, that satisfies the single sheet requirement.

(Asked by 18996 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

98/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Q80 DR05a - are specialty papers allowed as long as

they are sold as printer paper?

Q:

Are specialty papers like those made with Tyvek allowed for drone construction as long as they are 20lb weight or lower and not "coated"? (Example: https://www.jampaper.com/white-14lb-tyvek-8-1-2x11-paper-item-2179214491).

A:

No, specialty papers such as Tyvek are not allowed.

(Asked by 16461 answer published at October 3rd 2023)

Q100 Is this a legal drone?

Q:

Is this a legal drone design (assuming it was the correct team color had a team number on it)? It follows a non-ballistic trajectory and has a fuselage and 4 wings (<DR02>). Pictures:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vxjkC7jRas4xYdUXCO9SUta7wY9F9WxlcpdZV3v545g/edit?usp=sharing A:

No, this is not legal for several reasons. It does not look like a "paper airplane", it does not follow a glide path, and it has 4 fins not wings.

(Asked by 6955 answer published at October 11th 2023)

Q115 Can the Drone have print on it?

Q:

Are you able to have printing on the drone? If it is unseen?

A:

Yes, printing is allowed provided rule DR05 b is satisfied, no other rules are violated and the printing is not offensive. Note that the rules for the Team Scoring Element (Drone) are different than the rules for the Team Game Element (Team Prop). The Drone only needs to be predominantly red or blue and may have images, symbols, lettering, on it. The reason for the rule requiring predominantly red or blue is so that Field Personnel can easily determine which alliance earns points.

(Asked by 20022 answer published at October 17th 2023)

Q117 How about making drones like these planes?

Q:

Trying to make paper drones like these planes... https://thetravelbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/tim-samedov-10-1600x900.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/orPsV.jpg https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?

u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.lA1GE6CtrJyVQyR3W7bc3AAAAA%26pid%3DApi&f

=1&ipt=3f426fc713fe25df6dfcd0c4d8b67173bd61612d8953f3bd91dd980372c07826&ipo=images OK or not?

A:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

99/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

We cannot make a decision on hypothetical Drones. When you have a Drone built from allowable materials please submit the photo and we will rule on the legality of the design.

(Asked by 21852 answer published at October 17th 2023)

Q121 May a team cut a notch in their Drone?

Q:

Is it allowed to cut (or tear) a notch in the drone to aid in launching?

A:

Yes, Teams may make cuts in their Drones provided no other rules are violated.

(Asked by 21533 answer published at October 17th 2023)

Q122 Does the drone have to be red or blue?

Q:

<DR05> states that we may use a color printer to achieve the required red and blue colors. I know the drone has to have the team number to be easily identifiable, but does it have to be colored to match our alliance color?

A:

Rule DR03 states that "The predominant color of a Drone must match the Team’s assigned Alliance color for the Match (red or blue)".

(Asked by 19591 answer published at October 17th 2023)

Q126 Drone Construction

Q:

(a) Can we use glue or tape on the drone? (b) Can we apply water to the paper during construction to help folds in the paper become sturdy / stiff?

A:

A) No, rule DR05d state that no other materials are allowed. This includes tape, glue, paperclips, etc. B) Providing the water has evaporated and it leaves no residue, it is permissible to wet the paper during construction.

(Asked by 21457 answer published at October 19th 2023)

Q127 Continue on Q117, how do I submit pictures, a

pdf file?

Q:

Continue on Q117, how do I submit pictures, a pdf file?

A:

There is a new resource "Is your Drone Legal" that contains instructions on how to submit Drone photos. You can find the document at https://www.firstinspires.org/resource-library/ftc/game-and-season-info

(https://www.firstinspires.org/resource-library/ftc/game-and-season-info)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

100/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

(Asked by 21852 answer published at October 19th 2023)

Q128 Glide Path and Drone Legality

Q:

Q1: In Q100 you cite a "glide path". Is this replacing the "non-ballistic trajectory" Q2: In the new "Is Your Drone Legal?" document, L2 clearly has wings, IL2 clearly has no wings, what is the place where there is "enough wing"

between those two designs?

A:

A1: Glide path and non-ballistic trajectory are interchangeable terms.

A2: FIRST strives to compose robot construction rules that can be applied objectively and consistently across all FIRST Tech Challenge competitions. Despite our best efforts to try and write a subjective rule, the application of is subjective. The Inspectors will be looking for Drone characteristics that have the general configuration of an airplane with a defined fuselage and wings that have a reasonable potential for providing meaningful aerodynamic lift. The "Is Your Drone Legal" guide and the Robot Inspector's guide are two resources we made available to teams and inspectors to help you in building legal drones.

(Asked by 15259 answer published at October 19th 2023)

Q135 Legal or not drone not answered yet

Q:

I have submitted the pdf file for a design through the special link to upload file, no answer yet, or I am not looking at the right place? Q117, Q127

A:

The review process is now operational. Please remember that all submissions must be of a final, match ready Drone. That means the color must be correct, it must have a Team Number, be made from the allowed materials, and be the correct size and shape. A Drone violating any of the DR rules will be deemed illegal.

(Asked by 21852 answer published at November 15th 2023)

Q142 Drone Bond Paper

Q:

This paper appears to be legal, 8.5 x 11, 20 LBS, non-coated, Red and Blue, but it says Bond on the label, https://a.co/d/2cAYTTL. Bond Paper, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_paper, is basically made from high-quality durable fiber pulp.

A:

Yes, Bond paper is a common printer paper and is an acceptable material for building Drones (Asked by 18474 answer published at October 26th 2023)

Q164 Drone paper modifications

Q:

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

101/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

Requesting a clarification on what modifications to the drone paper are allowed. Notches are allowed and paper smaller than 8.5x11 is allowed. Q1: Can the starting sheet of paper be an irregular shape as long as it is smaller than 8.5x11 and a single piece? Q2: During construction, can pieces of the paper be trimmed with scissors and discarded - final drone is still single sheet. Q3: Can the drone have holes cut or punched in the paper assuming the cut-outs are discarded.

A:

A1: Yes, the starting size of the paper can be any shape as long as it is equal to or smaller than 8 1/2 x 11 or A4.

A2: Yes, the paper can be trimmed as long as the cut off parts are discarded. A3: Yes, holes may be cut out of the paper.

(Asked by 19746 answer published at November 7th 2023)

Q171 Can a Silver Sharpie be used to add the team

number to the drone?

Q:

Sharpie offers 2 types of silver pens (1) Sharpie Oil-based Paint Marker and (2) Sharpie Permanent Marker. I believe that the paint marker is not allowed and that the permanent marker is allowed. Can you state if either are legal per <DR05>?

A:

A1:Per Rule DR05b, the oil-based paint version of the Sharpie is not allowed.

A2: The standard Sharpie Permanent Marker is legal.

Remember, the reason for requiring a Team Number is so that Drones can be returned to the Teams post Match.

Any attempt to "game the rules" by adding weight by the use of excess ink or other marking materials will result in the Drone being disallowed.

(Asked by 21457 answer published at November 7th 2023)

Q177 We made a very small drone

Q:

Our team has found and optimal drone design for our launch system, but its design is strange and we would like to confirm that It is allowed. It has a clearly defined wings and fuselage, and is 1.5 inches long 2 inches wide (Including wingspan) and 1 1/4 inches tall. Is this and acceptable drone design?

A:

We believe Q178 (/qa/178) answers your question about size. If it does not, please rephrase your question and resubmit. As for the shape, please refer to the document "Is your Drone Legal" located at

https://www.firstinspires.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resource_library/ftc/is-your-drone-legal.pdf

(https://www.firstinspires.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resource_library/ftc/is-your-drone-legal.pdf)

(Asked by 23738 answer published at November 9th 2023)

Q178 Is there a minimum size requirement for the

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

102/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

paper drone?

Q:

Can we have a drone that only uses half or even smaller portion of the standard 8.5x11 paper?

A:

There is no restriction on the minimum size of a Drone, Teams may use as much or as little of the allowed paper as they wish. However, it is to a Team's benefit to be large enough for the Scoring Referee to see it from 12 - 18 feet away. And the Team Numbers must be legible.

(Asked by 23226 answer published at November 9th 2023)

Q259 Drone Color

Q:

Can we use a felt tip pen to color the drone or does it have to be printed from an inkjet or store bought with the pink, red, or blue color?

A:

Yes, you may use a felt tip marker to color the Drone.

(Asked by 17346 answer published at January 2nd 2024)

Q284 How will robot inspectors determine that the

weight of paper for a drone is legal?

Q:

<DR05>.a requires the paper weight to be no more than 20lb (75 g/m2). Given the subtle differences between 20lb (5grams, 0.09mm thickness) and 24lb paper (6grams, 0.12mm thickness) what would a team need to prove that their drone paper is legal?

A:

If there is concern that the paper exceeds the 20 lb. weight specification requirement, the inspector will ask the team if they have the packaging or a photo of the packaging. Without team provided documentation, inspectors will use their judgment with a team-friendly approach to evaluate the Drone's paper weight specification.

(Asked by 2901 answer published at January 21st 2024)

Q297 Wing angle of drone configuration

Q:

What angle do the wings have to be from the fuselage of a drone to be eligible? Here's a link to some examples of different angles. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-K_rHxm0dtCXJkdZDs6DopqzeChEMGrn A:

There is no specific wing angle that a Drone must meet to be legal. The intent is that the wing has an aerodynamic influence on the flight path of the Drone and that it is visibly a "paper airplane". Wings that are tight against the fuselage turn the Drone into a dart, which is not allowed. If there is a question at Inspection, the Inspector may ask the team to demonstrate the Drone in flight.

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

103/104

3/28/24, 1:26 PM

Q&A - FTC Q&A

(Asked by 5199 answer published at February 8th 2024)

https://ftc-qa.firstinspires.org/admin/report

104/104

Document Outline

Forum Cover Traditional

Admin Report - FTC Q&A