The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video

[Justin Ridley]

The Robonauts mostly complete robot for this year's competition.

http://vimeo.com/37293255

Congrats to all the teams on getting through another challenging six weeks. Good luck and see you at competition.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I knew someone would do it! :)

[nahstobor]

:ahh: :ahh: :ahh: :ahh: :ahh:

[Meredith Novak]

Beautiful robot. Wonderful video. Robonauts never disappoint. Congratulations!

[AdamHeard]

I knew someone would do it.

A lot of people were thinking it, but most feared it illegal. Very curious to see how this plays out.

Awesome robot though, I love the accuracy.

[Cory]

A lot of people were thinking it, but most feared it illegal. Very curious to see how this plays out.

Awesome robot though, I love the accuracy.


I am 100% convinced this should be legal and can(has) be done without meeting the colloquial definitions of grasp, grab, or grapple, but the GDC's inane refusal to be clear about what they intend to allow makes it very risky to travel down this path with confidence.

The rest of the robot is pretty sweet too. Will there be a Dukes of Hazzard horn for when you go over the bridge? ;)

[BJC]

Awesome, I've been waiting for this sense week 3!

[Aren_Hill]

VERY interested to see the robot side of the bridge while they are hanging.

I am 100% convinced this should be legal and can(has) be done without meeting the colloquial definitions of grasp, grab, or grapple, but the GDC's inane refusal to be clear about what they intend to allow makes it very risky to travel down this path with confidence.

In my mind this is exactly how grappling hooks work, I had thought of this and gave up on using it when I realized I couldn't hold ground in an argument that it was not "grasping grappling or attaching".

Instead I chose a completely legal by the rules route and had that flip on me....

easiest way to end this:

How do grappling hooks work? and how is this any different than that

[Akash Rastogi]

Needless to say, great robot. I love your choice for the name, truly inspirational, and its got the looks to match. Bridge hanging is so boss, I would love to hear the engineering that went into the end game mechanism.

Aside from that- what was the video taken with? Looks like a gopro wide angle.

[rcmolloy]

Incredible. I have been mentioning to a few people these past two days that I really haven't been "wowed" yet and now I have. Congrats on a awesome robot guys and good luck next week at Alamo. By the way to help clarify, is that two points of contact on the bridge or only one?

[Eugene Fang]

Awesome design. Mad props to 118.

I too, am curious at how the ruling for grasp/grab/etc will pan out. I understand how FRC 179's (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101676&highlight=179) robot isn't grasping the field because the robot's CG is directly over or under the C that touches the bridge, which means the robot is only reacting on one face of the bridge.

118's cantilevered hang means that the robot must be reacting on two faces of the bridge. I guess we'll have to see how the ruling goes...

[wireties]

Awesome design - the robotnauts never disappoint! I have doubts about your optional end-game tease (did I see what I thought I saw?) but it seems done in such a way that the bot excels using traditional strategies - the only risk was the design effort and a little weight. Elegant.

[Ankit S.]

Awesome. Incredible. Mindblowing.

I've been waiting for this video all build season :P.

That's a very novel bridge balancing idea, and I'm sure its legal, especially since we've already seen a similar method that is legal.

[waialua359]

I dont know what's more impressive every year.

Whoever made the video or the robot. :)

[Gray Adams]

That robot looks great, but I do have my doubts about the bridge balancing. If this doesn't count as grabbing, grasping, or grappling, what does? The GDC didn't specify not being allowed to do those things for no reason.

But wow. And now I'm wondering what "mostly complete" refers to.

[KrazyCarl92]

Wow! Can't wait to see this Robot in Connecticut! Unfortunately it looks like the bumpers as mounted on that robot are illegal based on the numbering, but I'm sure that won't be a big deal and is rather easy to fix. Maybe it's as easy as rearranging the ones you have on there since it looks like there are 6 pieces.

[Mark Sheridan]

that is one awesome robot. I think the pincher feeder is really cool. I was wondering about better ways to introduce balls to the shooter consistently. Does it help improve accuracy?

[AllenGregoryIV]

Robonauts never disappoint, I'll be inspecting at Alamo and I can't wait to see this in person.

The second ball camera is very cool, your drivers should have no problem on the other side of the field.

As for the bridge device we will see how the ruling comes down but it does seem to grapple to me. Either way a fantastic robot and you will find a way to have one the best end game mechanisms by the time championship comes around.

Lone Star is going to be great this year.

[familyguyfreak]

I love where you guys put the camera, and your ball intake is sooo fast!! Great video, great robot (since you said it's not complete yet, I wonder what else you have up your sleeves :ahh: ) and I can't wait to see this at Lone Star.

[Koko Ed]

It aint Reveal Period without a 118 video.
Best reveal video should be a FIRST reward.

[Peyton Yeung]

Wow, you guys never cease to amaze me with these videos.

[Billfred]

All legalities aside, videos like this are what keeps me working. Keep up the good work!

[Jared Russell]

Great robot, great video.

But I have difficulty coming up with a tenable rationale as to how that isn't grabbing, grasping, or (especially) grappling.

[thefro526]

This robot is simply stunning. The attention to detail you guys have is just amazing.

As with many others, I'm skeptical as to whether or not your bridge hanger is legal. With the current Q&A answers on grappling, grasping and grabbing it seems that a reasonably astute observer would argue that your machine is grappling the bridge.

[JesseK]

Great video, I love the tribute. Look forward to watching more videos of this robot in action!

[Taylor]

I was very impressed by the making of 3-pointers from the fender. I thought, "That's what the Robonauts are bringing this year."

Then came the ending.



Mind. Blown.



*poof*

[Peter Matteson]

1.) I'm a little disappointed you didn't have a Dukes of Hazard style jump over the bump this year. That 2010 video is still one of my favorites.

2.) I'm looking forward to seeing you here in CT for a regional this year.

[Brandon Holley]

Fantastic reveal video as usual 118! I'm glad someone is going for the bridge hang. We still have a design shelved, and allotted weight in our 30 lb allowance to bring it in, but wanted to see it successfully used in competition.

Kudos to the video editor(s), a very professional looking video. Someone had fun with a GoPro.

-Brando

[CalTran]

Good grief I've been sitting here for a while with my mouth open in awe...

Team 118 never ceases to amaze me with the elegant and "simple" designs that excel in what they're designed to do. That system looks almost exactly like the standard Rebound Rumble robot - ball comes in, goes up elevator, feeds into shooter, and is shot. However, and I'm still trying to figure this out, you always manage to add some hidden twist that makes it work PERFECT. :confused:

And that bridge manipulator...I'd love to see it working from a different angle because that seems like a lot of robot for a little grapple to be holding up...

[Koko Ed]

Someone had fun with a GoPro.

-Brando

Now there's something I'd love to see in the KOP.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Youtube version?

Vimeo blocked here.

[Tytus Gerrish]

nice gopro speed-ramping. too bad i lost mine in the ocean

[jblay]

Awesome robot. Perfectly legal in my opinion. Great video, just amazing editing. I can't believe I'm going to get to see this compete and possibly play with and hopefully not against this awesome machine at Connecticut.

[DampRobot]

Wow! I was amazed by the shooter. Are those two fisher prices powering it direct driven? Or is there some kind of gearbox?

As for the ending, I'm not sure if there is enough video to really tell if the strategy is legal or not. Even if deemed illegal, I'm sure that 118 still have a very serviceable bridge pusher.

[NickE]

This is the probably the most well-produced robot reveal video I've ever seen.
The robot is pretty sweet too. The Robonauts never do disappoint.

[nlknauss]

Yes, the best video reveal I've seen yet. Who can argue with that opening montage?!

All legalities aside, the design you have here is awesome. I love how the intake is facing opposite of the shooter and the transfer system from elevator to shooter. Have any CAD on this?

How about crossing the bridge or the bump?

[speedshot]

As always Robonauts rockin the house with awesome design, execution and of course video presentation.:D

[Andrew Lawrence]

My life is now complete! Best video ever Robonauts! :D:D:D

[V_Chip]

Connecticut awaits you.. :D

[O'Sancheski]

Connecticut awaits you.. :D

I am now more frightened than I thought I was going to be. :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

[V_Chip]

I am now more frightened than I thought I was going to be. :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

It'll be fine. :)

East coast hospitality!

[Andrew Lawrence]

The Robonauts mostly complete robot for this year's competition.

\

Mostly? How can there be more??? :ahh:

[Hjelstrom]

I missed the ending the first time because I quit at the credits! It should be legal because they pick the robot up without having to release a claw or anything like that. Wow!

[Swampdude]

Beautiful machine! Always love the videos too, great job guys.

Can those of you that see the ramp attachment as legal please explain why?

[Andrew Lawrence]

Can you please post it to youtube, so I can like it, fav it, and love it forever?

[Justin Ridley]

FIRST Community, we, the Robonauts, went out on a ledge this year by designing a feature on Endeavour that some thought might not be doable and even more thought might not be legal. As for the engineering of the problem, for us, it has been very exciting and VERY challenging ... the students and mentors have all become better designers by creating the "Robot On The Ledge". As for the legality, we posed many of the same questions as you have concerning whether hanging is covered under G10 and waited for weeks for clarification. Although it would take volumes to document our discussions, please allow us to explain why we feel this design, and others like it, falls within the intent of the rules.

The FIRST manual opens asking something of the teams; " When reading these rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes." We have used this as a guideline, and to the best of our ability followed this model. We feel FIRST could have been more clear with their intentions, but alas we have happily worked with what we've been given. We began this season striving to find an innovative solution that fit within the realm of options presented within this year's game challenge. The intent of the challenge is for a robot to be fully supported by a balanced bridge in a way that does not damage the field components.

From the manual there are two game rules and a dictation in the arena section that govern a successful balance.

[G10]
Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure. Robots may not push or react against the top of the Fender. (Robots may push or react against any element of the Arena that is not protected by another rule.)

[G12]
Robots may not damage any part of the Arena, including Basketballs.
Violation: Potential Disablement if the Head Referee determines that further damage is likely to occur.

A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it.

Our design uses a fixed downward facing C-shaped appendage on the end of an arm. The appendage is driven down with the gap of the C-shape coming to rest over the angled rail of the bridge. When the arm continues to travel down the robot angles slightly as it is lifted to become supported by the bridge. When slightly angled, the two inner walls of the C-shaped appendage merely react the load of the robot against the inside of the angled bridge rail and the outside features of the bridge. We believe this two point reaction of a fixed mechanism to support our robot weight falls within the intent of the rules because it is clearly written that robots may push or react against any element of the Arena. This simple reaction of forces is demonstrated by the robot being removed from the bridge simply by lifting it straight up. Our intention was actually to drive along the rail while maintaining this two point reaction... an engineering challenge we have not yet been successful at achieving with a fully weighted robot.

We would venture to say that the rule prohibiting the actions of grab, grasp, and grapple are of peoples primary concern, so let us elaborate on how our team understands the rules. To grab, grasp, or grapple you need actuation. Any reasonably astute thinker would agree that to grab or grasp a pencil off of a desk you would need to actuate or squeeze your fingers together. Grapple is a less commonly used verb and we believe inherently brings in some discrepancies because of this. When we use grapple, we often describing someone grabbing another person with their arms in a fight. We tried to look up grapple in the engineering bible (AKA the Machinist Handbook) but it was a dead end. So we turned to our home dictionary where grapple as a verb is defined with phrases "to hold", "to seize in a firm grip", "to clinch", "to engage in a struggle", and "to try to overcome". Like grab and grasp, these phrases bring to mind thoughts of actuation to accomplish the action. Our design is fixed and does not allow us to take "firm grip" of the bridge. We would venture to say that a fair amount of confusion arises from trying to relate the verb "grapple" to the mechanism known as a "grappling hook". We believe these are different parts of language used to describe different things and the latter should remain irrelevant and out of the discussion when attempting to clarify the verb grapple.

Briefly we will mention that adequate measures have been taken to prevent any damage to the field, including hang calculations for bending, analysis for localized deformation, and extensive testing on our bridge for scarring. There is a zip tie near the center of the bridge that to the best of our testing knowledge, we do not cut when a loaded weight crosses it. There are LEDs within the bridge c-channel structure that we do not interact with.

Questions have been raised throughout the season to FIRST alluding to this strategy. With each question we eagerly awaited an answer that would give us better direction one way or another. The opportunities were presented in the Q&A system for FIRST to make a clear and concise ruling on what they intended to be illegal actions and what they didn’t. They did not take this opportunity, which we feel is a move (albeit a frustrating one) to leave the challenge open and create opportunities for innovation.

We have no intention of cheating the system, gaining an unfair advantage, or exploiting the rules (we're not even sure how well our strategy will work in this game). We also understand others may disagree with our interpretations. Regardless of the ruling, the Robonauts will be better because of our efforts.

Thanks for your input,
The Robonauts

[jwfoss]

Justin,

Thank you for taking the time to type out and explain your teams discussion and point of view in relation to your mechanism and how it applies to the rules. It is clear that you took a path less travelled and went for a unique design. I commend you on your efforts in building what looks to be a highly effective machine. We will be watching the ruling on this closely. Good luck this season, and see you in CT.

[Andrew Lawrence]

I'd fight for the legality. If a ref says otherwise, direct them to your post up there. Makes perfect sense to me, and my job on the team is to read the rules. :cool:

[JaneYoung]

Mostly? How can there be more??? :ahh:

They have to add the competition salsa mix: focus, fun, and cheering fans. For additional spice, the fear factor will be added as they go.

:)

Congrats, Robonauts! Can't wait to see Endeavour at the Alamo.

Jane

[Brandon Holley]

Justin-

Great description of your thought process. We too went down a similar path of thinking, but we do differ slightly in one area. As I'm sure you guys did based on the description of your thought process, one word caught us up on this design, "grapple".

The first thing many people think of when you use the word "grapple" besides wrestling, is grappling hook. In my interpretation, essentially the c channel guide that reacts with the side rail of the ramp is accomplishing the same thing a grappling hook would. I am also in total agreeance with you that this is only one interpretation. I commend your team on "going for it" and I look forward to seeing what the final call on the field is when you lift that thing off the ground for the first time. Job very well done.

-Brando

[rachelholladay]

God thats beautiful. The robot, the video, the workspace. It's shame you guys can't drop by the Bayou...

[BrendanB]

I am now more frightened than I thought I was going to be. :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

I agree Connecticut can't come fast enough now!

[Elizabeth Waters]

REALLY looking forward to seeing it in action at Lone Star. That hang excites us.

[Chris]

Awesome robot.

The legality rulings of this will be interesting to follow

The following Q&A seem to apply.

Q. Are the definitions for "Arena structure" and "element of the Arena" the same? If so, are there instances in which a robot "reacting against" an Arena structure might be construed as an instance of a robot grabbing, grasping, grappling, or reacting with an Arena structure of the Arena? FRC0188 2012-02-02
A. Yes. Yes.

Q. Per this rule, would a device that utilizes a passive "appendage" deployed over the center line barrier (bump) to prevent your machine from being moved or twisted when hit (by applying forces to opposing sides of the barrier be considered a violation of this rule? Please elaborate on rule intent. FRC1730 2012-01-11
A. The intent of Rule [G10] is stated in its opening sentence, "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure." While, we cannot comment on the legality of a specific design, holding on to a field element is considered grappling and a violation of Rule [G10]
(Realize this is about bump but the bolded section seems applicable)

Q. Is it permissable for a robot on the bridge to extend a device that can also react off the bottom surface of the bridge provided that device does not grasp the bridge firmly? FRC0180 2012-01-15
A. Rule [G10] does not put a qualifier on how a Robot may legally grasp the Bridge. It simply says it cannot do it.
Again the answer seems applicable.

I just figured i'd post the Q&A to save people the time of looking them up.

Great robot regardless and I Look forward to welcoming you to CT!

[tzjin]

Beautiful video for a beautiful robot!

I'm also curious about that shooter, especially with the huge flywheel and the apparent direct drive? I thought I saw a gearbox within the white u-channel, but it spun with the shaft so I'm a tad confused.

Best of look with your balancer! I hope I can see you guys live at Champs!

PS. Gorgeous cheeseholing :)

[BrendanB]

Guys, you can go back and forth all day with definitions, rules, and the Q&A but it won't matter until you get to an event and the LRI/Head Ref get involved. Obviously the Robonauts have put a lot of thought and work to get there robot into all the rules required to play and I see it as legal and many members see it as legal but again, the GDC hasn't explicitly said if it was legal/illegal and they haven't competed.

Only time will tell but until then stop beating the dead horse of 179/118 and just say it is awesome already! :cool:

[eedoga]

I've been waiting for this. You guys do amazing work. We'll be looking out for you in all of the video streams.

Best of luck this year.

Edoga

[Madison]

I'm looking forward to seeing this up close next weekend and very interested in how things work out with respect to hanging from the side of the bridge.

Out of curiousity -- does that mechanism require that bridge is already level (or near level) to work properly? Can it accommodate a tipped bridge?

[Brandon Holley]

Only time will tell but until then stop beating the dead horse of 179/118 and just say it is awesome already! :cool:

Whoa whoa whoa now. I dont see a reason we cant have a mature discussion about this. As someone who spent a significant amount of time researching rules and designing an almost identical system and coming to a different conclusion I think my comments are worthwhile. If I was 118, I would certainly like to hear how other veteran teams view the issue.

I also believe 179 is completely different than 118.
-Brando

[Astrokid248]

Youtube version?

Vimeo blocked here.

Sorry, the shuttle footage used in the video violates YouTube's copyright policy. Vimeo's policy is more lenient.

[BrendanB]

Whoa whoa whoa now. I dont see a reason we cant have a mature discussion about this. As someone who spent a significant amount of time researching rules and designing an almost identical system and coming to a different conclusion I think my comments are worthwhile. If I was 118, I would certainly like to hear how other veteran teams view the issue.

-Brando

I'm just saying we have come to the conclusion that the GDC has not defined these terms: grasp, grappled, or grab and neither robot literally grasps, grapples, or grabs but figuratively does this based on what you see when it performs.

I love that 118 posted their thoughts but it is the hundreds of posts that follow quoting rules and answers that all lead to the same conclusion.

[rcmolloy]

I'm just saying we have come to the conclusion that the GDC has not defined these terms: grasp, grappled, or grab and neither robot literally grasps, grapples, or grabs but figuratively does this based on what you see when it performs.

I love that 118 posted their thoughts but it is the hundreds of posts that follow quoting rules and answers that all lead to the same conclusion.

I believe that if the GDC distinguished the rules to be "attaching" to the field, this would have been resolved rather quickly. We all know what the true definition of attachment is and 118 clearly isn't attached to the field anyway since they never had to release any clamping mechanism.

[Blackphantom91]

Around week 3 I started to wonder what you all were up to and you didn't disappoint at all, always great video and even better robot. good luck!

[ProgrammerMatt]

WOW! I can't believe you built that rocket in 6 weeks!!,

P.S. Is that how you ship your robot?

[bam-bam]

Our design uses a fixed downward facing C-shaped appendage on the end of an arm. The appendage is driven down with the gap of the C-shape coming to rest over the angled rail of the bridge. When the arm continues to travel down the robot angles slightly as it is lifted to become supported by the bridge. When slightly angled, the two inner walls of the C-shaped appendage merely react the load of the robot against the inside of the angled bridge rail and the outside features of the bridge. We believe this two point reaction of a fixed mechanism to support our robot weight falls within the intent of the rules because it is clearly written that robots may push or react against any element of the Arena. This simple reaction of forces is demonstrated by the robot being removed from the bridge simply by lifting it straight up. Our intention was actually to drive along the rail while maintaining this two point reaction... an engineering challenge we have not yet been successful at achieving with a fully weighted robot.

If the team wouldn't mind, could 118 post some pictures of the bridge-balancing appendage?

Amazing robot, and blown away by this simple application of forces. Great job.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Our intention was actually to drive along the rail while maintaining this two point reaction... an engineering challenge we have not yet been successful at achieving with a fully weighted robot.


Are you able to "connect" (or whatever rules-neutral term applies) to the ramp in a location that is easily counterbalanced by two bots on top of the bridge without being able to translate sideways yourself?

How well does this mechanism hold you when the bridge pivots from one side to the other?

At what state (bridge angle, other robots on the bridge, etc.) do you connect?

Very nice machine - all of it! Thanks for the video and description.

[Grim Tuesday]

FIRST Community, we, the Robonauts, went out on a ledge this year...

http://www.drunktiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/I-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

[Kevin Sevcik]

This is where the GDC's policy of not commenting on specific designs comes back to bite some poor head ref at an early regional. I think you should post one more Q&A pointing out that if the GDC doesn't rule on this type of design, a head ref is going to rule for them. Possibly multiple head refs, all coming to different conclusions. Which we all really, really hate.

Personally, I'd lean toward it being legal under G10, for reasons similar to what Justin states. It's certainly not grabbing the bridge. I think 118 is still going to have some challenges proving it doesn't damage the field. Also, I think this plays all kinds of heck with the bumper rules. Per Team Update 2012-01-20, the bumper zone seems to be defined in reference to the flat floor the robot is currently sitting on. 118 pretty clearly isn't sitting on any floor when balancing like that, so i'm unsure what the bumper zone is referenced to at that point. To be on the safe side, i'd want to make sure my bumpers are always in the bumper zone even if that hanging mechanism is off the bridge and the bot is sitting tilted on the floor.

Practically speaking, however, if I had this balancing mechanism, I'm not sure I'd care if it was legal per G10 or not. A G10 violation is a 3-point foul. A third balanced robot is +20 point in elims. I'm pretty sure I'd take that foul every time even if it is deemed illegal.

[Joe Ross]

This is where the GDC's policy of not commenting on specific designs comes back to bite some poor head ref at an early regional. I think you should post one more Q&A pointing out that if the GDC doesn't rule on this type of design, a head ref is going to rule for them. Possibly multiple head refs, all coming to different conclusions. Which we all really, really hate.

I thought this was an interesting, related question, asked today.

Game - The Tournament » Tournament Rules » T13
Q. How will FIRST maintain consistency between reasonably astute observers at events, and within events?
Answer is in pending state

[akoscielski3]

Thank God you picked a remix of this song :) we have the original version for our robot video. Which should be up tomorrow! :)

[rcmolloy]

Practically speaking, however, if I had this balancing mechanism, I'm not sure I'd care if it was legal per G10 or not. A G10 violation is a 3-point foul. A third balanced robot is +20 point in elims. I'm pretty sure I'd take that foul every time even if it is deemed illegal.

There is quite a flaw to it though Kevin. If a fouling occurrence is repeated often, I would more than likely see that the team would be distributed a red or yellow card because of the actions. Correct me if I am wrong but there is a limit as to where it would be used. Come to think of it, if that did receive a G10, wouldn't it possibly not be included within the balancing point accumulation?

[Tom Line]

I think a lot of the frustration being generated by these particular rules is apparent. Many teams thought of creating systems exactly like these: we did as well. The GDC's vague answers and refusal to clarify forced teams to make their own judgement calls.

We don't have the resources to design a mechanism that will likely (our own opinion) be classified as grappling and ruled illegal.

I wish 118 all the best. I will be extremely frustrated if this system is ruled legal by the GDC, thus conveying an advantage to teams that built something like this.

This issue is completely of the GDC's creation. Until they rule, all we're left with is opinion. If it's ruled legal there will be many very upset teams.

[jwfoss]

Let me first say that watching your video has allowed me to really appreciate the engineering that went into every single piece of your robot. There is alot to learn from what you guys do every year.

Upon further review of the bridge manipulator, I have stubbled upon something interesting. Is your mechanism capable of hanging from the low cost option of the field as provided to us here: Team Drawings (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2012_Assets/2012TeamDrawings.pdf)

I would think that the low cost field is designed to test out all of the games rules and therefore holds some intent of the rules inherently. This also supports the rule against trolling.

[Swampdude]

I think a lot of the frustration being generated by these particular rules is apparent. Many teams thought of creating systems exactly like these: we did as well. The GDC's vague answers and refusal to clarify forced teams to make their own judgement calls.

We don't have the resources to design a mechanism that will likely (our own opinion) be classified as grappling and ruled illegal.

I wish 118 all the best. I will be extremely frustrated if this system is ruled legal by the GDC, thus conveying an advantage to teams that built something like this.

This issue is completely of the GDC's creation. Until they rule, all we're left with is opinion. If it's ruled legal there will be many very upset teams.

I'm in agreement with you on this. The first thought I had was to hang off that angle but thought the grappling/attachment rule applied. When I think of grappling I think of a hook. Hence we went through all the trouble of resting on the ramp surface. I also understand the risk taking based on the lack of very specific language. But I think it puts the refs in a bad situation where one way or the other they will alienate someone. My opinion as witnessed in our design is that force would need to be applied to 1 surface of the bridge to avoid being seen as attached. Simultaneous applied forces on opposing multiple surfaces in my book is attachment. Will I have to rethink my logic after this ruling?

[Jared Russell]

Based upon limited information, I'd say it is premature to determine whether or not their hanging mechanism is legal, as it would entirely depend upon where their center of gravity is in respect to the bridge hanging mechanism.

I think it is obvious that their CoG is not underneath the attachment point.

[Kevin Sevcik]

There is quite a flaw to it though Kevin. If a fouling occurrence is repeated often, I would more than likely see that the team would be distributed a red or yellow card because of the actions. Correct me if I am wrong but there is a limit as to where it would be used. Come to think of it, if that did receive a G10, wouldn't it possibly not be included within the balancing point accumulation?Show me where violating G10 in repeated matches earns you a yellow card. There's nothing in the game rules. The only possibility is [T15], the general description of yellow cards which states they may be issued for "egregious robot or team member behavior". G10 only has a 3-point foul for a penalty. I'm finding it difficult to believe a Ref would yellow card a team for repeatedly committing a 3-point foul in successive matches. You'll end up with a ton of yellow carded rookies if that's the standard we're holding people to.
I wish 118 all the best. I will be extremely frustrated if this system is ruled legal by the GDC, thus conveying an advantage to teams that built something like this.

This issue is completely of the GDC's creation. Until they rule, all we're left with is opinion. If it's ruled legal there will be many very upset teams.Many teams will be upset if it's ruled legal? So you think it should be illegal because your personal team thought it was and passed on it?

Congratulations! You're one of the lucky winners of this year's batch of sour grapes. You may remember some of our recent winners. 2011's batch was issued to everyone that complained about magnetic minibot launching tracks. 2010's harvest went to those who were certain that 469 violated G19. 2009 had a bumper crop with all the angst over various methods of gaining traction or downforce. And who could forget 190, 2008's illustrious winner who was certain their track ball crane would score them scads of points, only to have it deemed illegal?

Seriously, man. There's some controversial ruling EVERY year. There's some strategy that most people passed on because they thought it was illegal, only to discover it wasn't. Sometimes there's a strategy a few teams boldly embarked upon only to have it ruled illegal. Every single year there's teams on both sides of some GDC ruling. Obviously, there's at least one team this year that's going to be upset if this design is ruled illegal. Your argument that it should be illegal because you think many teams will be upset holds no weight whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong here. You're perfectly justified in being annoyed that the GDC has yet to offer a clear ruling on this design. Teams on both sides of the issue have a right to be upset about that. It's obviously something that should have been commented on one way or the other earlier in the season, and the GDC has failed to do so for some reason. But the fact that some teams will be upset if it's ruled legal has surprisingly little relevance to whether it is or not. I mean, look how many teams are upset that split team numbers on bumpers is illegal.

[rcmolloy]

Show me where violating G10 in repeated matches earns you a yellow card. There's nothing in the game rules. The only possibility is [T15], the general description of yellow cards which states they may be issued for "egregious robot or team member behavior". G10 only has a 3-point foul for a penalty. I'm finding it difficult to believe a Ref would yellow card a team for repeatedly committing a 3-point foul in successive matches. You'll end up with a ton of yellow carded rookies if that's the standard we're holding people to.

I apologize if I was too direct on the fact that cards would have definitively been given if done. I was trying to make the argument that it might possibly be a violation and that refs may use T15 as a means to believe that it might be egregious behavior. I know that it is not stated directly in the rules that if an instance keep occurring then cards possibly might be brought into play. If I were 118, I would have no problem taking the risk but I would also have a clearer clarification from the refs at the event before undertaking the act. However, until week 1 events, most of us don't really know the outcome.

[Joe Ross]

LUpon further review of the bridge manipulator, I have stubbled upon something interesting. Is your mechanism capable of hanging from the low cost option of the field as provided to us here: Team Drawings (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2012_Assets/2012TeamDrawings.pdf)

I would think that the low cost field is designed to test out all of the games rules and therefore holds some intent of the rules inherently. This also supports the rule against trolling.

By your reasoning, anyone who hung from the vertical supports in 2010 wouldn't be legal, since those were 4x4s in the team drawings, and steel pipe in the real field.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I would think that the low cost field is designed to test out all of the games rules and therefore holds some intent of the rules inherently. This also supports the rule against trolling.To second Joe Ross, the low cost bridge doesn't even have anywhere near the same dynamics as the official bridge, and is flimsy as all heck. Also, the drawings for the low cost backboards don't have the retro-reflective tape. In short, the low cost fields are low cost approximations.

[nahstobor]

What material is being used on the wheels?

[Timz3082]

I think it is obvious that their CoG is not underneath the attachment point.

Obvious for the physics, we all abide to, but 118 has a totally different set of physics, without gravity, ya know, in space :P

[R1ffSurf3r]

What material is being used on the wheels?

molded urethane?

[Tom Line]

Many teams will be upset if it's ruled legal? So you think it should be illegal because your personal team thought it was and passed on it?


I never said what you imply. Our team believes it violates the rule on grappling. However, I also clearly stated that is only our opinion.

Your argument that it should be illegal because you think many teams will be upset holds no weight whatsoever.

I never said that either. I stated that I personally believe it violates the rule on grappling. I said that many teams will be upset if it is ruled legal.


Don't get me wrong here. You're perfectly justified in being annoyed that the GDC has yet to offer a clear ruling on this design.

And that is exactly the point I made. Unlike pretty much every other year, this question has been asked fairly clearly since week 1 of the build season. The GDC has avoided answering it indirectly and directly because of their refusal to deal with hypotheticals. I do not understand their reticence and refusal to clarify this rule. It's like they are DARING teams to take the chance, so that they can spring a surprise answer on FIRST during the first week of competitions. I'm sure that's not their intent, but that's where this is leading.

[BrandonHiggs]

Another beautiful robot by 118! Great job.

[45Auto]

[G10]
Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure. Robots may not push or react against the top of the Fender. (Robots may push or react against any element of the Arena that is not protected by another rule.)

Would this bridge attachment mechanism be legal to use on the siderails of the arena or the backboards of goals themselves to create a "dunking" robot? How is attaching to the bridge any different than attaching to other parts of the arena structure?

[jafisher]

Awesome video and an awesome robot. We look forward to seeing you guys in Connecticut this year!

[ghostmachine360]

Officially declared illegal at Alamo. That really sucks; the idea and design were amazing.

[Tristan Lall]

Officially declared illegal at Alamo. That really sucks; the idea and design were amazing.
Any more details? Was it called as a penalty in a match, or was this a decision reached before gameplay?

And which of "grasp", "grapple", "grab" or "attach" was it ruled to be doing?

[ghostmachine360]

Any more details? Was it called as a penalty in a match, or was this a decision reached before gameplay?

And which of "grasp", "grapple", "grab" or "attach" was it ruled to be doing?

It was declared after the match today, but they weren't penalized in their match.

Not sure about the definition, though; didn't hear what they declared to be the definition with the decision.

[CalTran]

Ouch...that really bites. But I'm sure Robonauts can rebound from this with "normal" balancing. If anything, they would have planned for this.

(Yes, pun intended)

[JaneYoung]

If anything, they would have planned for this.


And that's the beauty of it, isn't it? The inspiration that 118 has brought to the 2012 FRC game will go down as one of the legends in our history. They have inspired us in so many ways already:
- the risky and elegant design
- the documentation and in-depth discussions regarding the risks of the design
- what they are doing for this game, encouraging curiosity, adventure, integrity, and good sportsmanship - all in Week 1
- what they are doing for the Central Texas region - bringing their A game to a 2nd year Regional and sharing that A game with the veteran teams and rookie teams, alike - all the while, dealing with the glaring spotlight and the impact of the decision regarding their design

And these are just the aspects of the legend that I've thought about since their video release and throughout yesterday and today. I can't wait to follow them throughout their competition season and to celebrate with them as they go.

We are all very lucky to have FRC 118, the Robonauts, ready to rumble this 2012 FRC season. It's incredible.

Jane

[GilaMonsterAlex]

This is an awesome robot. I can see how this can be ruled illegal, but that doesn't take away from the fact that this robot can do this. Pure Awesome!

Way to go 118!!

[kcoriginal]

Will 118 ever post CAD from this robot... or any other previous 'bot?

I am just getting started in Solidworks and just generally I would like to look at it for about 9 and a half YEARS in absolute amazement...! :)

It was absolute liquid art to see at the Alamo Regional this weekend... Larger than life. I will remember it quite fondly for the rest of mine!

Thx for the beauty, the inspiration, the action, and the intrigue! So it ended with some bad luck, but you guys won so SOOOO much more!!!

thx, again!
kc

[Captaindan]

Hoping to see you guys at lonestar with our more than competent robot functioning 100 percent as opposed to bayou.

[JesseK]

I keep coming back to watch this video and show it to coworkers every few days. It's led me to feel that FIRST should make a marketing-based award for best launch video, with the deadline 1 week after build stop day. Forget hiring a professional production crew; FIRST already has the talent in their program. With YouTube, phone video cameras, and even built-in Windows Movie Maker we could get some pretty good videography that FIRST can use to spread its message.

Why is this video so good? It tugs at the emotional side of any nerd who loved watching a shuttle launch. It's simultaneously inspiring and intimidating to other FRC teams. Finally, the music doesn't cater to any single genre of music-lovers.

I agree it's a good robot -- but it's an even better video.

[lynca]

I keep coming back to watch this video and show it to coworkers every few days. It's led me to feel that FIRST should make a marketing-based award for best launch video, with the deadline 1 week after build stop day. Forget hiring a professional production crew; FIRST already has the talent in their program. With YouTube, phone video cameras, and even built-in Windows Movie Maker we could get some pretty good videography that FIRST can use to spread its message.


Great idea ! Adding a video award at the end of build season would be a great way to encourage teams to document their progress.

[lcoreyl]

I keep coming back to watch this video and show it to coworkers every few days. It's led me to feel that FIRST should make a marketing-based award for best launch video, with the deadline 1 week after build stop day. Forget hiring a professional production crew; FIRST already has the talent in their program. With YouTube, phone video cameras, and even built-in Windows Movie Maker we could get some pretty good videography that FIRST can use to spread its message.

Why is this video so good? It tugs at the emotional side of any nerd who loved watching a shuttle launch. It's simultaneously inspiring and intimidating to other FRC teams. Finally, the music doesn't cater to any single genre of music-lovers.

I agree it's a good robot -- but it's an even better video.

Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. I too, have watched, and rewatched both this years and last years videos from them and feel they set the standard (for many things, but right now I mean video production). I think an award to give both recognition and incentive to this would be perfect!

speaking of videos, anyone have a video of this mechanism being used with other robots?

[Kageshini]

Pretty late but how were you able to shoot baskets so rapidly from experience out robot needed 2-3 sec to regain speed how did y'all over come that?

[GarrettF2395]

Since this thread is up, I would like to submit a formal request to the robonauts for any other video footage they might have of the bridge mechanism in opporation. It would be a shame if 5 seconds of video is all the CD community gets to see of your amazing device. Especially after all the hard work put into its design and construction. ;)

All in favor say I.

[Anupam Goli]

I!

I'm also interested in your vision control. I read about you guys using Beaglebone and OpenCV. I'm actually doing something similar at my workplace, though we're using an Android instead of Beaglebone.

[JesseK]

Yup, still good after the umpteenth view.

[ToddF]

Ever since it first came out, I've been showing this video to family and co-workers and linking to it on other forums as an introduction to FIRST. Our team is participating in a NASA demo at Busch Gardens this weekend, and we may even show it there. Adding an award for best robot intro video is a fantastic idea.

[Justin Ridley]

Since this thread is up, I would like to submit a formal request to the robonauts for any other video footage they might have of the bridge mechanism in opporation. It would be a shame if 5 seconds of video is all the CD community gets to see of your amazing device. Especially after all the hard work put into its design and construction. ;)

All in favor say I.

Here's some short clips from testing during week 6.

http://youtu.be/0plwV3lCZE4

The power take off driving mechanism wasn't 100% ready for ship, so we modified the end effector to a simpler design for Alamo which would only hang. (There's a few pictures of this in action at the end). We had plans to refine the driving feature afterwards, but there was obviously no need.

This mechanism proved to be one of the toughest design challenges The Robonauts have ever undertaken. We learned a lot from the attempt and had a fun time with it regardless of the end results.

[pwnageNick]

Here's some short clips from testing during week 6.

http://youtu.be/0plwV3lCZE4

The power take off driving mechanism wasn't 100% ready for ship, so we modified the end effector to a simpler design for Alamo which would only hang. (There's a few pictures of this in action at the end). We had plans to refine the driving feature afterwards, but there was obviously no need.

This mechanism proved to be one of the toughest design challenges The Robonauts have ever undertaken. We learned a lot from the attempt and had a fun time with it regardless of the end results.

Such awesomeness.

[waialua359]

Thanks for sharing Justin.
You folks definitely demonstrate awesome engineering that inspires many here in the FIRST community.

Easily my favorite robot of the year.

[charlyy66]

Awesome video and robot