PDA

View Full Version : Team Update #9


Nick Lawrence
02-08-2011, 06:18 PM
Team Update #9 has been posted here. (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/Team_Updates/Team_Update_09.pdf)

-Nick

Chris is me
02-08-2011, 06:34 PM
No red card for tipping! I like it.

Nathan Streeter
02-08-2011, 06:40 PM
It really sounds like the GDC is clarifying their intent for how LOGOMOTION matches are to be played...

From G48A:
"A ROBOT with a mechanism outside of its BUMPER PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that MECHANISM to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER."

It sounds like the teams that have made mechanisms that extend out of the bumper perimeter to defend against other robots have had their designs ruled against! I'm sure it would've been valuable to know this intent earlier in the season... :-/

Somehow, I'm not too surprised, though... Over the last several years the GDC has carefully made the rules to limit defensive strategies - I was afraid these innovative ideas would be made illegal. Perhaps it is for the best... The combination of the ease with which defense could be played and the motion of the rack in 2007 made many matches generally low scoring.

Joe G.
02-08-2011, 06:44 PM
From R48A:
"A ROBOT with a mechanism outside of its BUMPER PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that MECHANISM to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER."

It sounds like the teams that have made mechanisms that extend out of the bumper perimeter to defend against other robots have had their designs ruled against! I'm sure it would've been valuable to know this intent earlier in the season... :-/


I think the key word here is inside. This rule seems to penalize mechanisms that reach inside of an opponent's frame perimeter, but doesn't prevent a team from using an extension to contact an opponent's bumpers, or other devices also beyond the frame perimeter. This would make, for example, using an extended arm to jab at a tower on another robot illegal, but I see nothing that would make, for example, this design (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/36093) illegal.

Nathan Streeter
02-08-2011, 06:49 PM
I think the key word here is inside. This rule seems to penalize mechanisms that reach inside of an opponent's frame perimeter, but doesn't prevent a team from using an extension to contact an opponent's bumpers, or other devices also beyond the frame perimeter.

Good call! Yeah, that definitely does seem to be the point... I'm glad I was wrong! :-) It sounds like they're talking about mechanisms (like arms) that are outside of the bumper perimeter that contact an opposing robot inside their frame perimeter (offending robot reaching into opposing robot's starting volume). Alright, makes sense, thanks! :-)

Sounds like a good update to me! :D

Grim Tuesday
02-08-2011, 10:10 PM
Eeh, dislike this update. Even if it is accidental, anyone who reaches inside a robot and messes up their electronics should be heavily penalized, not just a penalty. Yellow at minimum.

JB987
02-08-2011, 10:48 PM
Eeh, dislike this update. Even if it is accidental, anyone who reaches inside a robot and messes up their electronics should be heavily penalized, not just a penalty. Yellow at minimum.

Great defensive strategy in some cases...a team can possibly take out opposing alliances top scoring bot now with just a yellow even if obviously intentional (and no red?). Why would the GDC reduce a basic level of protection all robots should benefit from to protect hundreds of hours of hard labor and thousands of dollars worth of equipment? Certainly means at the very least teams need an extra robust level of lexan shrouds protecting their vitals, and a minimum level of exposed wiring on their mechanisms...or maybe we should design a titanium shroud now?

rutzman
02-08-2011, 10:51 PM
Great defensive strategy in some cases...a team can possibly take out opposing alliances top scoring bot now with just a yellow even if obviously intentional (and no red?). Why would the GDC reduce a basic level of protection all robots should benefit from to protect hundreds of hours of hard labor and thousands of dollars worth of equipment? Certainly means at the very least teams need an extra robust level of lexan shrouds protecting their vitals, and a minimum level of exposed wiring on their mechanisms...or maybe we should design a titanium shroud now?


<T09> If the behavior is particularly egregious, a RED CARD may be issued without being
preceded by a YELLOW CARD, at the Head Referee’s discretion. The TEAM will still carry a
YELLOW CARD into subsequent matches.

pfreivald
02-08-2011, 10:53 PM
Better question: Why are you driving around with exposed electronics?

JB987
02-08-2011, 11:00 PM
Better question: Why are you driving around with exposed electronics?

Believe me, we don't. But there are always teams that have some level of exposure and they may possibly pay dearly for it. I have seen robot mechanisms blow through various barriers, including lexan, that completely shrouded their components by the way during field action over the years.

Hawiian Cadder
02-08-2011, 11:00 PM
http://www.solostocks.com.mx/img/policarbonato-celular-verolite-multiwall-387261z0.jpg

we have this covering every inch of our electronics, i hit it with a foot long 1 inch wrench as hard as i could and it held. btw, our entire electronics board is made of this, and a 27 by 27 by 5 box of this weighs .8 LBS. if you have exposed electronics i would highly recommend this.

Chris is me
02-08-2011, 11:54 PM
Great defensive strategy in some cases...a team can possibly take out opposing alliances top scoring bot now with just a yellow even if obviously intentional (and no red?).

That's not the case at all. First, a yellow card means the "strategy" would obviously only work once.

Secondly, <G48> still exists - you would earn two yellow cards in a single match. Does that become a red card?

Why would the GDC reduce a basic level of protection all robots should benefit from to protect hundreds of hours of hard labor and thousands of dollars worth of equipment?

Because FIRST doesn't want to give out red cards to a team with an arm holding a tube that just brushes against another robot?

Certainly means at the very least teams need an extra robust level of lexan shrouds protecting their vitals, and a minimum level of exposed wiring on their mechanisms...or maybe we should design a titanium shroud now?

Yellow cards are not trivial things! There is a BIG PENALTY for doing something. Why is that the end of the world now, just because they need to do it twice to get disqualified instead of once?

JB987
02-09-2011, 12:26 AM
That's not the case at all. First, a yellow card means the "strategy" would obviously only work once.

(Once may be all that is needed if you take out a top scorer?)

Secondly, <G48> still exists - you would earn two yellow cards in a single match. Does that become a red card?

("Repeated or egregious violations of this rule will earn the offending ROBOT a YELLOW CARD."...doesn't say repeated violation earns a red card, it says repeateted violations receive a yellow card,Chris.)

"Violation: PENALTY and potential YELLOW CARD"



Because FIRST doesn't want to give out red cards to a team with an arm holding a tube that just brushes against another robot?

(From the blue box..."A ROBOT with a mechanism outside of its BUMPER PERIMETER may be penalized under
this rule if it appears they are using that MECHANISM to purposefully contact another
ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER. Regardless of intent, a ROBOT with a
MECHANISM outside its BUMPER PERIMETER that causes damage to another ROBOT
inside of its FRAME PERIMETER will be penalized." So a penalty is to be assigned regardless of intent per this explanation, a yellow at most which a team may be willing to live with, especially for a high stakes qualifier late in the rounds.


Yellow cards are not trivial things! There is a BIG PENALTY for doing something. Why is that the end of the world now, just because they need to do it twice to get disqualified instead of once?

(Addressed above)

I am just discussing what could happen...Fortunately the vast majority of teams out there wouldn't consider intentional damage to another's robot.

Koko Ed
02-09-2011, 03:14 AM
I recall an incident back in the 2004 elims where 494 got tangled up with 121 and ended up tearing out wiring out of 121. There was a rather ugly thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27872&highlight=494+121) about the whole thing too over it.
While FIRST isn't Barttlebots things do get pretty hardcore out there sometimes and in spite of FIRST passing rules to prevent such incidents (kind of like what the NFL keeps doing) it will come up again.

sanddrag
02-09-2011, 03:50 AM
Call me old, but back in the day (2003 comes to mind) the game was a much more aggressive smash 'em crash 'em style. Robots had to be built tough to survive, and it was quite fun at times (at these for those who knew the meaning of robustness). Bumpers were optional back then, and most went without. Metal on metal contact. Anyhow, I think the new rules have allowed us to really thin out a lot of structure and do more complex tasks without fear of damage. So, I'd say mostly it's been a positive change.

I do agree though, teams should not be building fragile robots. You are not alone on the field. There are 5 other robots which will potentially knock into yours.

Koko Ed
02-09-2011, 03:58 AM
Call me old, but back in the day (2003 comes to mind) the game was a much more aggressive smash 'em crash 'em style. Robots had to be built tough to survive, and it was quite fun at times (at these for those who knew the meaning of robustness). Bumpers were optional back then, and most went without. Metal on metal contact. Anyhow, I think the new rules have allowed us to really thin out a lot of structure and do more complex tasks without fear of damage. So, I'd say mostly it's been a positive change.

I do agree though, teams should not be building fragile robots. You are not alone on the field. There are 5 other robots which will potentially knock into yours.

The most violent incident I ever saw at a FIRST event was in 2003 when 378 raced up the field at Buckeye and ran straight through 494 and sent them flying where the robot landed upside in a heap.

Tetraman
02-09-2011, 07:34 AM
The most violent incident I ever saw at a FIRST event was in 2003 when 378 raced up the field at Buckeye and ran straight through 494 and sent them flying where the robot landed upside in a heap.

I remember buckeye that year too. It was a demolition derby.

They took out the "potential disablement" violation in <G48> and didn't replace it in <G48A>. This is probably a good thing.

Mr_I
02-09-2011, 08:01 AM
Call me old, but back in the day (2003 comes to mind) the game was a much more aggressive smash 'em crash 'em style. Robots had to be built tough to survive, and it was quite fun at times (at these for those who knew the meaning of robustness). Bumpers were optional back then, and most went without.
As I recall, 2006 (Aim High) was the first year of optional bumpers; before that it was all metal on metal, as you said. 2003 (Stack Attack) was the roughest of the years I've seen, the closest it ever got to BattleBots, and I think the universal reaction was "No, we don't want to go there anymore."

Koko Ed
02-09-2011, 08:13 AM
As I recall, 2006 (Aim High) was the first year of optional bumpers; before that it was all metal on metal, as you said. 2003 (Stack Attack) was the roughest of the years I've seen, the closest it ever got to BattleBots, and I think the universal reaction was "No, we don't want to go there anymore."

I think I'm in the minority of actually likeing that game. They just gave to many points for the endgame and the eliminations were screwed up.

Brandon Holley
02-09-2011, 08:36 AM
As I recall, 2006 (Aim High) was the first year of optional bumpers; before that it was all metal on metal, as you said. 2003 (Stack Attack) was the roughest of the years I've seen, the closest it ever got to BattleBots, and I think the universal reaction was "No, we don't want to go there anymore."

No, bumpers were optional back then too. The "standard bumper" of today was first optional in 2006. Back in 2003 the bumper rules were a bit more ambiguous (to say the least), no definitively defined material, no "bumper zone" etc. It was just a way to help teams protect their robots a little bit if they wanted. I saw very few teams running with bumpers back then.

-Brando

mathking
02-09-2011, 08:58 AM
On the 2011 game: If the referee determines that you are intentionally trying to damage the internal workings of another robot you can still get a red card directly. What this update does is give the referee some discretion if, for example, you tip over onto another robot and damage it.

2005 remembered: In Pittsburgh that year there was a case when a robot (I think it was 128) initiated (unintentionally) contact with another robot which as a result damaged the first robot. The second robot got disqualified. This update gives a referee some wiggle room to prevent that from happening.

2004 (FIRST Frenzy) remembered purely for nostalgia's sake: This game was pretty rough too. At least partly because so many of the collisions happened while one or more robots were suspended several feet off of the ground. In one match while we were winching up another robot drove on top of us (they were trying to push us away from the bar, not to drive on top of us, but didn't realize that once we had deployed our hook we were not going anywhere) from the top level of the platform. We didn't retract our overly massive arm for fear of breaking their much smaller arm which was entangled with them. But we need to get off the ground to win the match, so after waiting about 10 seconds for them to get off, we tried to winch up to get them to slide off. But their robot was stuck on ours. Our winch lifted the two robots up off the ground, but we were not in balance so we swung violently to the side, hit a third robot and knocked it off the bar to fall on a fourth robot. (In the end, we didn't win either because our robot was swinging back and forth and at the apex of the swing the edge of our ball grabber would brush the platform, so no points for hanging.)

JesseK
02-09-2011, 09:53 AM
Oy, all of these metal on metal collisions were before my time. Anyone have a video? My girlfriend's dad is really into BattleBots and was somewhat underwhelmed by the DC Regional last year. I've modified his attitude a little, but it wouldn't hurt to show him some old school carnage as well.

This update should prevent teams from intentionally knocking out an opponent's MINIBOT (a concern, but a minor one). Most teams protect their electronics -- but I bet many teams aren't protecting their MINIBOT as much as they should be. After all, there is no deployment if the MINIBOT doesn't make it to the endgame to begin with!

JB987
02-09-2011, 11:16 AM
[QUOTE=mathking;1019025]On the 2011 game: If the referee determines that you are intentionally trying to damage the internal workings of another robot you can still get a red card directly. What this update does is give the referee some discretion if, for example, you tip over onto another robot and damage it.

There is nothing within the language of G48A that suggests a red card can/will be applied, all references are to yellow cards only, regardless of intent...Is there a regulation elsewhere in the manual that allows a ref to disregard the specific language of a rule? Per my earlier comments, I wish there was a specific allowance for a ref to red card a team for intentional efforts (yes, intention is sometimes hard to determine) to damage another team/s robot...but this update seems to limit the penalty ( a yellow card is less a deterent than a red card, right?).

artdutra04
02-09-2011, 11:37 AM
Oy, all of these metal on metal collisions were before my time. Anyone have a video? My girlfriend's dad is really into BattleBots and was somewhat underwhelmed by the DC Regional last year. I've modified his attitude a little, but it wouldn't hurt to show him some old school carnage as well.Things like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5nnGGRi-94) used to be a lot more common. Most of the time it would just end with robots tipping over or getting tangled, but a few times something awesome happened.

You also used to have to build very robust drivetrains. By the end of the year, there would be dozens of major dents and gouges with traded paint everywhere, along with hundreds of more minor scratches.

There was also the unforgettable and satisfying thunk sound made whenever two robots made contact. EVERYONE would know you hit something. I haven't heard this sound in a FRC arena in years.

Alan Anderson
02-09-2011, 11:54 AM
[QUOTE=mathking;1019025]Per my earlier comments, I wish there was a specific allowance for a ref to red card a team for intentional efforts (yes, intention is sometimes hard to determine) to damage another team/s robot...but this update seems to limit the penalty ( a yellow card is less a deterent than a red card, right?).

<T09> gives the Head Referee the option of giving a RED CARD for "particularly egregious" behavior.

pfreivald
02-09-2011, 12:04 PM
<T09> gives the Head Referee the option of giving a RED CARD for "particularly egregious" behavior.

And I like that it is at the discretion of the Head Referee -- exactly as it should be. I imagine that any intentional destruction of another robot's mechanisms (mechanical or electronic) will earn such a RED CARD, and thus not make it worthwhile.

Joe Ross
02-09-2011, 12:20 PM
Oy, all of these metal on metal collisions were before my time. Anyone have a video? My girlfriend's dad is really into BattleBots and was somewhat underwhelmed by the DC Regional last year. I've modified his attitude a little, but it wouldn't hurt to show him some old school carnage as well.

In 1999, 45 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0CDop_IwW8) was well known knocking people over with their arm.

In comparison to 1999, the 2000 game seemed tame at the time. However, watching this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FJFbvHRyco) it certainly was rougher then anything today.

One thing to realize is that prior to 2005, most teams had significantly less power in their drivetrain then now. The kit transmissions that accept two CIMs and the introduction of the AndyMark shifting transmissions have really increased the speed of the average robot, and thus the violence of the collisions. For example, in 2000, an average robot went 4-6 ft/sec. There's a lot more energy in a collision at 12 ft/sec then at 4.

Brandon Holley
02-09-2011, 01:09 PM
In 1999, 45 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0CDop_IwW8) was well known knocking people over with their arm.

In comparison to 1999, the 2000 game seemed tame at the time. However, watching this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FJFbvHRyco) it certainly was rougher then anything today.

One thing to realize is that prior to 2005, most teams had significantly less power in their drivetrain then now. The kit transmissions that accept two CIMs and the introduction of the AndyMark shifting transmissions have really increased the speed of the average robot, and thus the violence of the collisions. For example, in 2000, an average robot went 4-6 ft/sec. There's a lot more energy in a collision at 12 ft/sec then at 4.


Is there a better way to kill time than watching throwback FIRST vids? I don't think so...

Watching all the old matches brings back the memories of seeing these robots on the field and being absolutely awe struck.

-Brando

Racer26
02-09-2011, 05:27 PM
I think I'm in the minority of actually likeing that game. They just gave to many points for the endgame and the eliminations were screwed up.

I really liked 2003 as well. It was my rookie year. 1075 had a machine with ~4" pool noodles on the leading edge.

Our worst year for violent robot contact was 2004. Teams with dead reckoning autonomous (like us!) to get to the yellow ball were often targeted by opposing teams with a high-speed straight on autonomous, attempting to defend that ball. More than once, this resulted in violent head-on full speed collisions between our robot and an opposing robot. One of these collisions involved so much kinetic energy, it bent the 1" square aluminum tube frame of our robot some 3" in deflection. The remnant frame of that robot is still missing the piece to this day where we had to sawzall that piece out to continue competing at the Wonderland Invitational (and go on to win, with 1241, and 1114.)

PAR_WIG1350
02-09-2011, 10:37 PM
or maybe we should design a titanium shroud now?

Well, titanium has a lead time of ~54 weeks* so, you could put it on your 2013 robot.


*Our mentor works for a company that orders it in bulk directly from the processor, that's how long it takes them to get it.

artdutra04
02-10-2011, 12:31 AM
Well, titanium has a lead time of ~54 weeks* so, you could put it on your 2013 robot.


*Our mentor works for a company that orders it in bulk directly from the processor, that's how long it takes them to get it.http://www.mcmaster.com/#titanium

If you order it now, you may get it by Friday, or at worst, Saturday.

Intersting fact: when the Lockheed's Skunk Works (also a great book (http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003)) was developing the SR-71 Blackbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird) in the 1960s, the United States did not have enough titanium to actually build the planes. The only country at that time with enough titanium ore and processing potential was, ironically the very country we were building the SR-71 to spy on, the Soviet Union. In order to get enough titanium to actually build the SR-71, a number of bogus front companies were formed to import titanium from the USSR for seemingly civilian purposes.

PAR_WIG1350
02-11-2011, 12:29 AM
http://www.mcmaster.com/#titanium

If you order it now, you may get it by Friday, or at worst, Saturday.

Intersting fact: when the Lockheed's Skunk Works (also a great book (http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003)) was developing the SR-71 Blackbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird) in the 1960s, the United States did not have enough titanium to actually build the planes. The only country at that time with enough titanium ore and processing potential was, ironically the very country we were building the SR-71 to spy on, the Soviet Union. In order to get enough titanium to actually build the SR-71, a number of bogus front companies were formed to import titanium from the USSR for seemingly civilian purposes.

I am aware of the fact that one can acquire titanium in a reasonable amount of time. That is why I included the note explaining that the situation involved a bulk purchase [that was processed-to-order from ore, one sheet at a time].