Ramps

[Sperkowsky]

Hello so we have all seen the various ramps teams have come up with to deal with the tote chute. I have been designing one for my team and Ive come up with a few designs.

1. Passive design made with wood and polycarbonate.

2.non passive design with a window motor that raises and lowers the angle of the ramp in order to compensate for more then one tote at a time.

The non passive one is obviously better but would require a tether. My question is would the passive one require a tether too or would it just have to fit in transport configuration. Also does the ramp count towards total weight of the robot.

IF it does count towards the weight I would probably make a fully bent poly design.

[rich2202]

Under what theory would the ramp not have to meet the robot rules?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Hello so we have all seen the various ramps teams have come up with to deal with the tote chute. I have been designing one for my team and Ive come up with a few designs.

1. Passive design made with wood and polycarbonate.

2.non passive design with a window motor that raises and lowers the angle of the ramp in order to compensate for more then one tote at a time.

The non passive one is obviously better but would require a tether. My question is would the passive one require a tether too or would it just have to fit in transport configuration. Also does the ramp count towards total weight of the robot.

IF it does count towards the weight I would probably make a fully bent poly design.


Is it a robot part? Then it counts towards weight.

Is it a robot part? Then you can't intentionally detach it (it needs to be tethered)

[Sperkowsky]

Under what theory would the ramp not have to meet the robot rules?

well thats why I asked I wasnt sure.

[Sperkowsky]

Is it a robot part? Then it counts towards weight.

Is it a robot part? Then you can't intentionally detach it (it needs to be tethered)

Ok so I would make a bent lexan ramp the real question is what counts as a tether. Can We just use really think fishing line or if it needs to be visible high gauge red or black wire

[Andrew Schreiber]

Ok so I would make a bent lexan ramp the real question is what counts as a tether. Can We just use really think fishing line or if it needs to be visible high gauge red or black wire

Are there rules in the rulebook governing what is a tether?

Do these rules specify that it need be visible? Or that it need be anything?

I'll save you some looking, there's no rules specifically governing tethers. But there are rules regarding robot construction. Follow those.

[Sperkowsky]

Are there rules in the rulebook governing what is a tether?

Do these rules specify that it need be visible? Or that it need be anything?

I'll save you some looking, there's no rules specifically governing tethers. But there are rules regarding robot construction. Follow those.

alright.... The reason why I asked was because I know some teams robot(forget which team) was deemed illegal due to lack of visibility.

[Christopher149]

alright.... The reason why I asked was because I know some teams robot(forget which team) was deemed illegal due to lack of visibility.

I think you're thinking of 148, and the visibility issue was (I believe) a thin black suspended cable between waist-high and head-high. A tether on the floor should be fine IMO if it isn't attached to the floor and isn't a trip hazard.

[IronicDeadBird]

I think you're thinking of 148, and the visibility issue was (I believe) a thin black suspended cable between waist-high and head-high. A tether on the floor should be fine IMO if it isn't attached to the floor and isn't a trip hazard.

Be mindful of how your tether interacts with the field and other robots though

[Mr V]

To be on the safe side I'd recommend using Mason's line, a strong string that is usually available in high visibility pink or yellow at your local hardware store.

[AdamStockton]

Ok so I would make a bent lexan ramp the real question is what counts as a tether. Can We just use really think fishing line or if it needs to be visible high gauge red or black wire

This is what the Q and A "defines" a tether as:

Question 425:

Q: What defines a "tether"? Must the tethered portion of the robot be powered or may it be a static component attached by a rope? G25 mentioned you may not intentionally detach - what if the tether were to snap/break off?

A: There's no FRC-specific definition of tether, but in robotics, it's generally used to refer to a leash which is also a carrier for power and/or signal. There are no rules that specifically dictate what can and can't be on the other side of a tether. Also, there is no requirement that two joined components of a ROBOT use a "tether" to connect them. G25 does not penalize accidental breakage, however if a ROBOT part were constructed in way that breakage is inevitable, the team will likely be asked to remove or revise that element.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Not that since the ramp must be tethered to the robot at all times, it's going to be important that the refs be able to visually determine that this is the case. If you're using thin monofilament or something similar, you're going to be doing a lot of arguing that the ramp was, in fact, tethered to the robot during the match.

[rich2202]

well thats why I asked I wasnt sure.

Then the question you may want to ask is: Is there a way to make a ramp that is excluded from any or all of the robot rules?

[Sean Raia]

I don't believe so.
I'd love to see some sort of "anchor" used in addition to the ramp, tethered to the robot and the ramp, which allows the tether pivot to be centered in a more convenient location.

Don't know if that's truly beneficial, but it seems it would be. I'm pretty sure Alfred does this in addition to his main feature.

[BeardyMentor]

Be mindful of how your tether interacts with the field and other robots though

Yes, this. Just because a fishing line is legal, does not mean you should use it. I would suggest some thing stiff enough and thick enough that it can be driven over without getting caught in rollers on mecanum or omni wheels and is unlikely to be caught by belts or chains. Oh and clearly visible against the carpet. Nothing makes you unpopular like disabling alliance partners by getting your tether stuck in their drive train

[Sperkowsky]

I don't believe so.
I'd love to see some sort of "anchor" used in addition to the ramp, tethered to the robot and the ramp, which allows the tether pivot to be centered in a more convenient location.

Don't know if that's truly beneficial, but it seems it would be. I'm pretty sure Alfred does this in addition to his main feature.
I would go crazy with that but our robot is dangerously close to the weight limit

[Sperkowsky]

Yes, this. Just because a fishing line is legal, does not mean you should use it. I would suggest some thing stiff enough and thick enough that it can be driven over without getting caught in rollers on mecanum or omni wheels and is unlikely to be caught by belts or chains. Oh and clearly visible against the carpet. Nothing makes you unpopular like disabling alliance partners by getting your tether stuck in their drive train
Do you have any recommendations for cheap light cable or wire. My first thought is red 16 or 14 gauge wire. But being I'm no mechanical expert I'm not sure if that's optimal.

[BeardyMentor]

I would have to do some testing but, I would guess vinyl coated 1/8" cable should work pretty well. Stiff enough to not be easy to tangle up in drive trains small enough to be almost unnoticed by wheels of most types, and available in a variety of bright colors to contrast against both blue and red. If you have a robot from previous years around, go grab some cable from the Orange colored big box store and drive over it a bunch.

[MrRoboSteve]

Something like this (http://www.mcmaster.com/#8912t145/=w94es4) would probably stay put.

[bEdhEd]

I have an idea for a "ramp," but it won't be a robot part.
We'll have to test this on our practice field to see if it works well for our design.

[wesbass23]

So where does 1114's ramp fall in the rules of ramps and tethered robot parts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzeSsgWorFI


At first I thought they just replaced their 3rd alliance member with a ramp.

[Sperkowsky]

So where does 1114's ramp fall in the rules of ramps and tethered robot parts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzeSsgWorFI


At first I thought they just replaced there 3 alliance member with a ramp.

wait is that tethered?

[wesbass23]

wait is that tethered?

It does not appear to be. Could be small enough to not be seen by the camera though. The ramp is completely passive however, the human player tips it down with the noodle.

[rich2202]

So where does 1114's ramp fall in the rules of ramps and tethered robot parts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzeSsgWorFI


At first I thought they just replaced there 3 alliance member with a ramp.

I only saw 2 robots on that side. Could the ramp be a 3rd robot?

[Sperkowsky]

I only saw 2 robots on that side. Could the ramp be a 3rd robot?

Its not a bad Idea to have a ramp on hand and have teams put their number plates on it if there are any issues getting their robot to the match Maybe even bringing a printer to the competition

[The other Gabe]

Hello so we have all seen the various ramps teams have come up with to deal with the tote chute. I have been designing one for my team and Ive come up with a few designs.

1. Passive design made with wood and polycarbonate.

2.non passive design with a window motor that raises and lowers the angle of the ramp in order to compensate for more then one tote at a time.

The non passive one is obviously better but would require a tether. My question is would the passive one require a tether too or would it just have to fit in transport configuration. Also does the ramp count towards total weight of the robot.

IF it does count towards the weight I would probably make a fully bent poly design.

Being part of the robot, the ramp must follow all robot rules and fit into transport configuration.
I would suggest a passive design; if your robot is able to function without the ramp's help, a tether takes up too much field space... if you're going for a FRC 148-esque design, then the tether might make sense

[GaryVoshol]

Does a ramp have the minimum features to qualify as a ROBOT?

[JohnFogarty]

Does a ramp have the minimum features to qualify as a ROBOT?

Think of it more as a part of the robot and not as a robot itself.

[Doug Frisk]

This is what the Q and A "defines" a tether as:

That seems to indicate that if it's not carrying power or signal it's not a tether.

I think we need to come up with a new term for a robot tied to a ramp with a string rather than using tether.

[JohnFogarty]

If you want to be really specific the word tether in the English language has absolutely no reference to a attachment wire that provides power to another object. Both tether and leash are defined as cables used to limit a domesticated animal's range of movement. It's not exactly confusing to use the word tether to describe methods of attachment ether powered or not interchangeably.

Funny enough. We use a COTS retractable dog leash as our tether for our ramp. $10 from a local pet store.

[Mr V]

Do you have any recommendations for cheap light cable or wire. My first thought is red 16 or 14 gauge wire. But being I'm no mechanical expert I'm not sure if that's optimal.

Wire or cable is not a good idea in my opinion since it has memory and won't want to lay flat.

As I said in a previous post I recommend Mason's line It is a strong string and is available in florescent colors so it is highly visible and it will lay flat so the entanglement hazard is low. http://www.homedepot.com/s/mason%27s%2520line?NCNI-5

[mman1506]

Wire or cable is not a good idea in my opinion since it has memory and won't want to lay flat.


We did some testing at GTR-C with a tethered ramp. Thin aircraft cable was less prone to getting caught in our wheels than 3/16 nylon rope. We made a ramp from pink panther insulation foam, it was not particularly durable but it only weighed a pound and worked just fine.

[Monochron]

Wire or cable is not a good idea in my opinion since it has memory and won't want to lay flat.

As I said in a previous post I recommend Mason's line It is a strong string and is available in florescent colors so it is highly visible and it will lay flat so the entanglement hazard is low. http://www.homedepot.com/s/mason%27s%2520line?NCNI-5

I can't find anything on those brands indicating their rated loads. Do you have any source that might list that? We found that we need higher than 80 lb rated load for an application, and I don't know whether or not I can trust Masons Line.

[Fusion_Clint]

I suggest you try Braided Fishing line like http://www.amazon.com/Power-Pro-2110065050-Parent-Microfilament-Line/dp/B005ADORGK.

In my experience it's breaking point is well above its rated load. Just make sure you use the right knot, the "palomar knot" is recommended for braids.

[EricH]

I suggest you try Braided Fishing line like http://www.amazon.com/Power-Pro-2110065050-Parent-Microfilament-Line/dp/B005ADORGK.

In my experience it's breaking point is well above its rated load. Just make sure you use the right knot, the "palomar knot" is recommended for braids.

I wouldn't.

Not for the breaking strength, but for the visibility factor. 35 thou or so isn't all that easy to see, particularly from the edge of the field. You'd want to make fishing-line rope with it just for visibility. Remember, if the refs can't see the tether, we may be doing some investigating after the match to make sure the tether is actually present and is actually in one piece. That's going to take a while... Particularly if for some reason we decide that we need to check after every match.


I've seen some nice elastic-y cord, as well as nylon webbing. I might--if I was y'all--look at some light kernmantle-type rope. Not climbing-weight, mind you, but something on the order of shoelace size. It can be a smidge on the heavy side, but it's plenty strong.

[Fusion_Clint]

I wouldn't.

Not for the breaking strength, but for the visibility factor.

Did you notice the color linked too is High Vis yellow before you commented?

Also, assuming the "we" in your comment is the refs; that is your decision on whom to give additional scrutiny, just don't penalize them for your ridiculous decision. It should be pretty easy to determine if the tether is in place.

[EricH]

Did you notice the color linked too is High Vis yellow before you commented?

High Visibility Yellow, at .035" thick. On carpet. From a distance. Think about that for one moment.

Is it going to be visible? Yeah. Is it going to be easily visible at close range? Yeah. Is it going to be easily visible at 15 feet? 20 feet? 50 feet? How about 150 feet (somewhere in the audience)? Not so much.

And because it's not as easily visible as, say, mason's line, the refs--even if they can see it clearly--are going to have people asking "isn't that a penalty?" to which the response will have to be--every match--"No, because there's a tether there" (and a quick-thinking ref will hopefully check the tether after every match just to make sure it didn't snap). Remember, if you make something obvious, the refs are a lot less likely to have to take time to make a judgment call (BTW, we don't like making judgment calls if we don't have to). If you make it non-obvious... well, it could go either way. Chances are that you'll be asked nicely to see if there's any way to make it more visible.

For example, I think it would be a lot easier to see if someone were to apply a rope-making machine to the line and turn 1 strand into 6 or so strands all tightly woven together.

Also, assuming the "we" in your comment is the refs; that is your decision on whom to give additional scrutiny, just don't penalize them for your ridiculous decision. It should be pretty easy to determine if the tether is in place.It is. Realize this: It should be easy to determine if the tether is in place. Yes, I agree. It may be LESS easy to determine that it is still in one piece! And if it is not in one piece, we'll probably start with a suggestion to use a stronger tether if possible (assuming that such multi-piece-ness was accidental), and only start going for stronger "suggestions" if it happens again.

Because remember: If you can "get away with not following" a rule (here I'm aiming at the perspective the rest of the teams may be seeing from, and giving us a hard time after or during the event from), there are other teams that may be, shall we say, a little "less accidental" about "not following" a rule, and then you're the "well, they got away with it" team used as an example by said teams. I don't like those kind of situations, as a spectator OR as a ref!

[Fusion_Clint]

It is legal or not? Without clear rules to the contrary, if the refs decide to penalize a team because it inconveniences them because it makes them answer questions from the crowd (like that happens); then that is against the intent of Franks message here http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-dallas-regional-final-matches-resolution

BTW, 80LB power pro, does not snap unless you have a serious fish on the line, a 120 LB robot doesn't stand a chance.

[EricH]

It is legal or not? Without clear rules to the contrary, if the refs decide to penalize a team because it inconveniences them because it makes them answer questions from the crowd (like that happens); then that is against the intent of Franks message here http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-dallas-regional-final-matches-resolution I agree.

But let me ask one simple question. Let's assume that you see a ramp, on the far side of the field from your team, with no apparent tether to its parent robot. What is your assumption, and how does that affect your experience?

Now, I know in FRC, many people (like you and me) will go "Oh, they found something hard to see as a tether" and go ask the team questions, and learn something new. But others (I make no assumptions on actual involvement level) will probably assume that the team is being allowed to slide past the rules, and the logical conclusion from that (flawed) assumption is that teams are getting away with cheating (I'm assuming, that they don't go talk to the team in question, or the officials, for some reason). Does that help their team experience?

I submit that it doesn't help that individual's team's experience, partly due to "one sour apple". And there's nothing the officials can do about it if the team doesn't ask questions to clarify. That's a shame.

So by making a somewhat visible tether even more visible, you actually improve the team experience, without the various officials getting involved at all. Just a thought. (And it helps the refs out--see tether, know that tether is/isn't wrapped around tote/robot/container, makes it easier to score--and makes it much easier to avoid getting snagged after the match if it's misbehaving.)



BTW, 80LB power pro, does not snap unless you have a serious fish on the line, a 120 LB robot doesn't stand a chance.
Just out of curiosity, how well does it do when run over by mecanum wheels or inadvertently snagged in a drivetrain? Tensile strength and shear strength aren't entirely the same... I'm guessing you've run a couple of tests? I highly recommend doing a quick strength/snag test if one isn't sure of how a tether will hold up, if there's a robot available.

[Sperkowsky]

It not getting tangled is a big deal. Because if it gets tangled it has the potential to ruin a wheel, and render our robot and our partners robot useless for the match.

[Fusion_Clint]

EricH,

Your reaching really hard now; one mythical team (alliance) that doesn't ask any questions about a possible infraction of the rules (which could easily be answered by the refs or other teams), instead of the dreaded unicorn crowd question before?

Now your also asking the merits of the braided line? Can it be cut? Yes, anything that will cut the lines you suggested will also cut braided fishing line.

How does the tether being wrapped around anything make a difference in the score? How does the line that is wrapped around anything impact the score or the game? If a rope is around the stacks is ok, does it change the score if a braided fishing line is wrapped around instead?

Your preference is a thicker line that you perceive as more visible, the rules allow for other options.

It may be time to think logically...

[GeeTwo]

I only saw 2 robots on that side. Could the ramp be a 3rd robot?

If I were making the call, I would find a robot without the basic control system to be in violation of (emphasis mine):
R25 The one (1) ROBOT battery, single pair of Anderson Power Products (or APP) 2-pole SB type connectors, the one (1) main 120-amp (120A) circuit breaker (Cooper Bussman P/N: CB185-120), and the one (1) Cross The Road Electronics Power Distribution Panel (PDP, P/N: am-2856, 217-4244) shall be connected with 6 AWG wire or larger as shown in Figure 4-2.

R47 The DAP-1522 Wireless Bridge must be connected to the roboRIO Ethernet port (either directly or via a CAT5 Ethernet pigtail).

R53 The Wireless Bridge must be mounted on the ROBOT such that the diagnostic lights are visible to ARENA personnel.

R54 ROBOTS must use at least one (1), but no more than two (2) diagnostic ROBOT Signal Lights (RSL)...

There are a couple of other details about connections and license plates, but at a minimum, the part would have to have the minimal control and communication system and the signal light working. I did not find anything about a minimum number of sensors or actuators.

[Alan Anderson]

BTW, 80LB power pro, does not snap unless you have a serious fish on the line, a 120 LB robot doesn't stand a chance.

The ability to withstand a pull without breaking is not an issue for something like a passive tether/leash. Getting cut is what I'd worry about. A piece of material that's less than a millimeter thick seems likely to be easily damaged by robot wheels and gearboxes.

Eric's caution appears sound to me. I agree with the basic idea that you should also avoid making it difficult for people to see that you are following the rules, and a .035 wide line is going to be difficult to see.

How does the tether being wrapped around anything make a difference in the score?

For one thing, a tote stack in autonomous only counts if it is not in contact with a robot.

[CaityDawh]

Check out Team Driven 1730's robot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ceoJls16s It has a ramp and is a rear-loader. It uses the Human-Player Station. It can make stacks of 6 with container and noodle very fast. The ramp is made entirely out of lexan.

[Mr V]

I can't find anything on those brands indicating their rated loads. Do you have any source that might list that? We found that we need higher than 80 lb rated load for an application, and I don't know whether or not I can trust Masons Line.

Mason's line is pretty strong but I don't know of it having a specific load rating. A roll is cheap enough tht you could test it yourself.

If you want a line with a load rating I'd go with "Paracord", the stuff Home Depot sells has either a 130lb or 160lb rated working load in the 1/8" version. Lots of teams are successfully using it for their lifts this year.

[Gregor]

But let me ask one simple question. Let's assume that you see a ramp, on the far side of the field from your team, with no apparent tether to its parent robot. What is your assumption, and how does that affect your experience?

If you have to follow a tether to identify the team it's illegal per the blue box in R2.

[EricH]

If you have to follow a tether to identify the team it's illegal per the blue box in R2.

Wasn't the rule I was thinking about. I was assuming that the ramp had all its numbers.

[Fusion_Clint]

The ability to withstand a pull without breaking is not an issue for something like a passive tether/leash. Getting cut is what I'd worry about. A piece of material that's less than a millimeter thick seems likely to be easily damaged by robot wheels and gearboxes.

Eric's caution appears sound to me. I agree with the basic idea that you should also avoid making it difficult for people to see that you are following the rules, and a .035 wide line is going to be difficult to see.



For one thing, a tote stack in autonomous only counts if it is not in contact with a robot.

Again,

Don't worry about the effectiveness of a teams solution when it comes to whether it is within the rules or not. Again, anything that will cut a rope will also cut braided line.

"highly visible" is not a requirement in the rules. And the rule is supported by a robot, not touching a robot.

It is amazing to me that people with zero apparent experience with high visibility braided line are making such absolute statements about it.

I withdraw from this conversation on the basis that one should not argue with ....

[EricH]

And the rule is supported by a robot, not touching a robot.

All I will say to that is that if there is doubt as to support, the referees will not score the points--see the rules since Day 1. And touching is often enough to add in doubt.

[Fusion_Clint]

All I will say to that is that if there is doubt as to support, the referees will not score the points--see the rules since Day 1. And touching is often enough to add in doubt.

If you think a 1/32" line laying on the ground touching a tote is considered to be supporting a stack, you should not be in a position of trust. That is way past a realistic interpretation of the rules and you have missed the intent of Frank's message about team experience.

Frankly, you are part of the problem.

[Gregor]

The attached photo did not enhance my event experience.

[BeardyMentor]

If you think a 1/32" line laying on the ground touching a tote is considered to be supporting a stack, you should not be in a position of trust. That is way past a realistic interpretation of the rules and you have missed the intent of Frank's message about team experience.

Frankly, you are part of the problem.

Calm down, they are just trying to help. The idea is that it *could* be interpreted that way. If you have two options, one that could be ruled in such a way that you do not get the points and the other where there is no question, you should go for the option where there is no question. In the end it is completely your and your team's choice. The people here are just giving you their opinion and some simple justifications for it.

I am not so worried about the Refs saying the tether is supporting the totes, but of entanglement. I know that these thin very flexible lines have a good chance of getting caught in the rollers on mecanum and omni wheels. There would have to be a lot of testing done before we were to put anything that might pose an entanglement hazard to another robot on our alliance on the field.

[Andrew Schreiber]

If you think a 1/32" line laying on the ground touching a tote is considered to be supporting a stack, you should not be in a position of trust. That is way past a realistic interpretation of the rules and you have missed the intent of Frank's message about team experience.

Frankly, you are part of the problem.

Just like the elevator hooks leaning on top can't support it?

FIRST has almost always had "contact implies supporting" rules. Because otherwise it's a judgement call and those are worse than illogical calls (like 1/32 cable supporting 60lbs of game pieces) because they are inconsistent.

What Eric is saying is don't even give them a reason to not count it because there's a chance it won't get counted just so they are consistent.

[g_sawchuk]

Wow, this conversation has really "ramped up" into quite the argument.

[GeeTwo]

There would have to be a lot of testing done before we were to put anything that might pose an entanglement hazard to another robot on our alliance on the field.

And with monofilament, by the time it is large enough to be visible, it does not lay flat on the carpet. This makes monofilament an entanglement hazard for rubber wheels as well.

(emphasis mine)
There would have to be a lot of testing done before we were to put anything that might pose an entanglement hazard to another robot on our alliance on the field.
And this is also why I do not expect to see tethers in play again, until/unless we have another "Step" game, in which the alliances must occupy different spaces, or at least have large exclusive zones from which they can effectively play the game. This year you can only be an entanglement hazard to your own alliance.

[akoscielski3]

I only saw 2 robots on that side. Could the ramp be a 3rd robot?

Unfortunately this camera angle is bad for you to see the other robot. It is behind the TV screen near the MC, running even with the scoring platform. You can see it's base and it's elevator sticking out.

We had 2 ramps connected to Team 1547 (our ramp called "RAMP RAMP RAMP" and half a tote that 610 used as a ramp). They were connected using bright orange fishing line that ran along the perimeter of the field.

Thank you to Team 1547 for being our valuable third robot! :)

[rich2202]

The attached photo did not enhance my event experience.

Did they not count it as a STACK? As far as I know, the only stack with limitations is for an RC that can only be supported by gray totes ("by only scored Gray TOTES" in 3.1.2.3).

In 3.1.2.2, the requirement is only "supported by the STEP". The blue box goes on to say that "support" is transitive through other TOTES, which implies that it can also be transitive through other items, such as LITTER, or even an RC.

I suppose that one could argue whether the LITTER somehow breaks the "single column" requirement. But, that would be pretty lame.

[ATannahill]

I do not see how saying support is transitive through totes implies that support is transitive through litter. Especially look at the Q&A response (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/439/consider-a-stack-on-the-scoring-platform-of-the-following-orientation-starting-from-the-bottom-now-were-here-grey-tote-1-grey-tote-2-litter-grey-tote-3-grey-tote-4-grey-tote-5-recycling-con).

Please note, I am not saying I like the call, I am just saying this call is not surprising if you read the Q&A.

[rich2202]

I do not see how saying support is transitive through totes implies that support is transitive through litter. Especially look at the Q&A response (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/439/consider-a-stack-on-the-scoring-platform-of-the-following-orientation-starting-from-the-bottom-now-were-here-grey-tote-1-grey-tote-2-litter-grey-tote-3-grey-tote-4-grey-tote-5-recycling-con).

Please note, I am not saying I like the call, I am just saying this call is not surprising if you read the Q&A.

QA439 is explicitly about RC's, which is what I said does not allow for transitivity through other items, and thus does not apply to this situation.

3.1.2.2 in the rule says "supported" without definition. In the blue box (which is a note) adds clarification that support is transitive. Since the clarification did not say transitive "only" through other TOTES, it can be reasonably implied that it is transitive through other items as well.

[pntbll1313]

QA439 is explicitly about RC's, which is what I said does not allow for transitivity through other items, and thus does not apply to this situation.

3.1.2.2 in the rule says "supported" without definition. In the blue box (which is a note) adds clarification that support is transitive. Since the clarification did not say transitive "only" through other TOTES, it can be reasonably implied that it is transitive through other items as well.

But it's not explicityly about RC's... "Gray TOTES 3,4,5 do not score because "support" is only transitive through TOTES and not LITTER."

[rich2202]

But it's not explicityly about RC's... "Gray TOTES 3,4,5 do not score because "support" is only transitive through TOTES and not LITTER."

Upon closer reading, I saw that. Odd ruling since no where in the manual does it say that for totes, support is transitive only through totes. I submitted a Q&A.

I suppose the intention may be to discourage the creation of unstable stacks.

[Mr. Tatorscout]

I withdraw from this conversation on the basis that one should not argue with ....

...says the man who couldn't resist making yet another snarkey comment later on! I don't think the word "withdraw" means what you think it means. Perhaps you have been tethered by this thread.:rolleyes:

[IronicDeadBird]

I really regret not looking into things you could deploy on the field this year. Dare I say I hope to see some of these mechanics "recycled" in the future. The designing challenges involved with tethers sounds like a lot of fun. Has anyone seen robots using ramps for things other then just augmenting the loading station?

[Siri]

Q439 Q. Consider a stack on the Scoring Platform of the following orientation, starting from the bottom (now we're here): Grey Tote 1, Grey Tote 2, Litter, Grey Tote 3, Grey Tote 4, Grey Tote 5, Recycling Container. Assume that the litter did not increase the level of the Recycling Container. How many points would be Scored for each Grey Tote and Recycling Container? Is the intent to have a piece of Litter in a stack disqualify Totes/Recycling Containers from scoring points? Thanks for your time!

A. In this scenario, only the bottom two Gray TOTES score. Gray TOTES 3,4,5 do not score because "support" is only transitive through TOTES and not LITTER. The RECYCLING CONTAINER does not score because it is not supported by only scored Gray TOTES.[emphasis mine, Q&A from 3/3/15 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/439/consider-a-stack-on-the-scoring-platform-of-the-following-orientation-starting-from-the-bottom-now-were-here-grey-tote-1-grey-tote-2-litter-grey-tote-3-grey-tote-4-grey-tote-5-recycling-con)]

On the topic of tethers, if a tether were under a tote, this also invalidates the stack above it. This means that every time we submit scores for an 'invisible tether' (I make not claims as to what will end up being invisible) alliance, we'll need extra time to figure out exactly where the tether isn't as well as verify (informing the judgement call) that it isn't designed to simply break when entangled.

No one is talking about carding or fouling teams for making our lives difficult. That's personally ridiculous to me, and our lives are made plenty difficult by teams with things besides invisible tethers, don't you worry. This is more about match logistics (though do watch G11). Do you want to be the team that makes scoring and reset slower and more difficult? Potentially invalidate your own stacks? If the strategy/mechanism you're considering is otherwise legal, it's your choice.

[Monochron]

I suggest you try Braided Fishing line like http://www.amazon.com/Power-Pro-2110065050-Parent-Microfilament-Line/dp/B005ADORGK.

In my experience it's breaking point is well above its rated load. Just make sure you use the right knot, the "palomar knot" is recommended for braids.

For strength we ended up buying this:
http://www.amazon.com/Kevlar-Braided-Speargun-400lb-includued/dp/B008QDMKG0

Rated tensile strength of 400lb and very flexible. Might not be great for visibility unless you layer it, but it is going to be very tough to break.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

For strength we ended up buying this:
http://www.amazon.com/Kevlar-Braided-Speargun-400lb-includued/dp/B008QDMKG0

Rated tensile strength of 400lb and very flexible. Might not be great for visibility unless you layer it, but it is going to be very tough to break.

As a kite enthusiast (I use it for my KAP line)I would caution the use of Kevlar in applications where it could be pulled against something. It is good at resisting breakage but it is also very good at slicing when pulled tight and/or run against something.

[steelerborn]

So I have been looking into this for a couple weeks and would really like to know the rule that states that a "passive" ramp needs to be tethered to the robot. So long as the ramp has the appropriate numbering it should be able to be placed on the field without the use of a tether.

It can be placed inside of the robot to fit into transport configuration and then placed on the field, by the drive team and HP.

G25: ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD.

Since the robot itself is not intentionally detaching anything (the drive team is) and this is before the match even starts so G25 would not be violated.

I have looked around the Q&A as well.
Q289 I think is getting close to the question, but the answer is all about the tape mentioned as the tether.

And in Q56 which brought the tether into play, mentions it is used for sharing the electrical system between two mechanisms.

I think there just needs to be a team update the extends G25 to the time before the match. If someone has an actual ruling I would really appreciate that.

[IronicDeadBird]

So I have been looking into this for a couple weeks and would really like to know the rule that states that a "passive" ramp needs to be tethered to the robot. So long as the ramp has the appropriate numbering it should be able to be placed on the field without the use of a tether.

It can be placed inside of the robot to fit into transport configuration and then placed on the field, by the drive team and HP.

G25: ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD.

Since the robot itself is not intentionally detaching anything (the drive team is) and this is before the match even starts so G25 would not be violated.

I have looked around the Q&A as well.
Q289 I think is getting close to the question, but the answer is all about the tape mentioned as the tether.

And in Q56 which brought the tether into play, mentions it is used for sharing the electrical system between two mechanisms.

I think there just needs to be a team update the extends G25 to the time before the match. If someone has an actual ruling I would really appreciate that.

That risks opening up the can of worms where teams can now modify the field in unfair ways.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

If I were making the call, I would find a robot without the basic control system to be in violation of (emphasis mine):


Gus I would have started out the list with R1.

[Bryce Paputa]

That risks opening up the can of worms where teams can now modify the field in unfair ways.

Unfair ways? Like what? Every team would be allowed to do it so I would think it would end up pretty even. I interpreted it the same way as steelerborn, but every just thinks I'm crazy for it. I miss FLL when the rules meant exactly what they said and there was no "spirit of the rule"; seeing as this is just big kid FLL it would have been nice to try that interpretation for a year.

[BigJ]

So I have been looking into this for a couple weeks and would really like to know the rule that states that a "passive" ramp needs to be tethered to the robot. So long as the ramp has the appropriate numbering it should be able to be placed on the field without the use of a tether.

It can be placed inside of the robot to fit into transport configuration and then placed on the field, by the drive team and HP.

G25: ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD.

Since the robot itself is not intentionally detaching anything (the drive team is) and this is before the match even starts so G25 would not be violated.

I have looked around the Q&A as well.
Q289 I think is getting close to the question, but the answer is all about the tape mentioned as the tether.

And in Q56 which brought the tether into play, mentions it is used for sharing the electrical system between two mechanisms.

I think there just needs to be a team update the extends G25 to the time before the match. If someone has an actual ruling I would really appreciate that.

Easy:

ROBOT – an electromechanical assembly built by an FRC Team to perform specific tasks when competing in RECYCLE RUSH. It includes all of
the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game: power, communications, control, and movement. The implementation
must obviously follow a design approach intended to play RECYCLE RUSH (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD or a
ROBOT designed to play a different game would not satisfy this definition).

A ROBOT is an (i.e., one) assembly.

T7 Each registered FRC team may enter only one (1) ROBOT (or ‘Robot’, which to a reasonably astute observer, is a Robot built to
play RECYCLE RUSH) into the 2015 FIRST Robotics Competition.

Each TEAM may only enter one ROBOT.

Anything you detach from the ROBOT is no longer a ROBOT and should not be allowed to be left on the field (just like you can't leave the hand tools you brought with you on the field)

[steelerborn]

BigJ I think that is a fair reading of the rules.
But it does not also say that it is one assembly exactly.
I am not saying that you are wrong (I think both of us are technically right), but the rules are just allowing for different interpretations.

And the ramp itself does not meet the definition of the robot because it does not require power, communications, control, and movement. So it isn't a robot on its own, and G25 was never broken because the robot did not intentionally detach anything as I stated before.

I just think that G25 needs to be extended to HPs and drive team members leaving passive objects on the field.

Has anyone tried to do this at a competition yet? If so what rules were cited?

[IronicDeadBird]

Unfair ways? Like what? Every team would be allowed to do it so I would think it would end up pretty even. I interpreted it the same way as steelerborn, but every just thinks I'm crazy for it. I miss FLL when the rules meant exactly what they said and there was no "spirit of the rule"; seeing as this is just big kid FLL it would have been nice to try that interpretation for a year.

A good definition of fair is not "both sides can do it therefore it is fair."
Maybe this is a big kid version of FLL to you but that doesn't mean that is what it is for everyone. A lot of people gain a lot of different things from First. In this years game not so much but in future games the technicalities that arise from making field modifications are too complicated to deal with. This argument that states you could leave a ramp on your side of the field with no connection to the robot I could then use and go. "Well I'm going to go leave a wall on the opposite side of the field in front of the tote chutes because passive structures are now allowed to be introduced into the game"
Now whats the call?
Can it be interacted with by the opposing side cause its not part of the field or part of a robot?
More importantly is this fair?
At this point in time you aren't playing the game you are just playing the rules.

[Alan Anderson]

So I have been looking into this for a couple weeks and would really like to know the rule that states that a "passive" ramp needs to be tethered to the robot. So long as the ramp has the appropriate numbering it should be able to be placed on the field without the use of a tether.

Nope. <G8> says "DRIVE TEAMS may not leave items other than their ROBOT on the FIELD."

[steelerborn]

Alan I think that is the best rule so far.
Thanks I was looking for the ruling so I could inform my team.

[GeeTwo]

Gus I would have started out the list with R1.

So much of R1 is subjective, that I decided to skip ahead to find more objective rules, recalling that they were there. But yes, sentence 3 of R1 also makes the case quite clearly.

Trying to summarize all of the rules and definitions about a driver team-detached subassembly:


One robot per team (T7)
A robot is an assembly. (Glossary)
An assembly consists of components which are connected, or at least touching each other. (English language)
The robot may not detach pieces from itself. (G25)
The drive team may not leave anything other than the robot on the field (G8)

The argument in favor of untethered robot subassemblies is then:
The drive team detached a piece of the robot and left it - as a part of the robot, but detached - on the field.

The key question in the ruling then, is: Is the detached piece or subassembly still considered part of the robot for the purposes of G8 for that match, even though it was not part of the robot assembly which included the power/control/communications system at the start of the match?

There were a few questions in the Q&A which were more obvious than this one, but not many. Consider the previous Q&A answers, and it's not even worth asking this one, IMHO.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I guess this is really an issue that revolves around the one rule that is absent this season and that is the sizing rule. In an indirect way, it also involves what we inspect as ROBOT. This season, there is no size restriction other than Transport Configuration. We have to inspect everything but it must fit inside the Transport Configuration at some point. (Which by the way is the configuration that all robots must be in when moving from pit to field and back.) If your robot is an unlimited size, it still needs to be one and only one, ROBOT. Teams that choose to have a separate part of the robot that is either passive or active, must still show that there is only one robot (See R1 below) on the field for each team. While others are trying to point to a specific rule, we must consider that the manual is something that needs to be taken as a whole. Some sections speak to robot size, some to position, some to starting position but overall everyone of them speak about THE ROBOT. As a small sample...

R1 A Team must submit their ROBOT for Inspection. The ROBOT must be built by the FRC Team to perform specific tasks when competing in RECYCLE RUSH. The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game – power, communications, control, and movement. The ROBOT implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play RECYCLE RUSH (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD, or a ROBOT designed to play a different game does not satisfy this definition).

or

R3 The ROBOT must satisfy the following size constraints:
A. during a MATCH, the ROBOT height may not exceed 78 in.
B. the ROBOT must be able to be arranged into a TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION with dimensions which do not exceed 28
in. wide, 42 in. long, and 78 in. tall.

Please note that these use the singular rather than "a" showing a clear intention that each team build and use just one robot. I believe that tethers, whether containing power or simply passive ropes, satisfies the one robot of unlimited size.

[Botsup]

Unfortunately this camera angle is bad for you to see the other robot. It is behind the TV screen near the MC, running even with the scoring platform. You can see it's base and it's elevator sticking out.

We had 2 ramps connected to Team 1547 (our ramp called "RAMP RAMP RAMP" and half a tote that 610 used as a ramp). They were connected using bright orange fishing line that ran along the perimeter of the field.

Thank you to Team 1547 for being our valuable third robot! :)

So when was the bright orange fishing line set up along the perimeter of the field as the tether? Was this done by the drive team before the match even started?

[cglrcng]

I have a few questions for Al (or anyone else that can answer without muddying the waters even further)....I just cannot see how that ramp that can be seen in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzeSsgWorFI), in the upper Right hand corner, is in any way possibly actually legal under the existing 2015 FRC ruleset, (and the admissions made in certain posts in this thread). I hope someone can possibly explain it in plain english.

1. Without being told (since there seems to be no visible and required license plates seen in either the up or the down orientation of the ramp during the match on the video, and Frank already explained that "If one has to follow a tether to figure out what robot the tethered robot element is attached to, it would be "ruled ILLEGAL." (As leaving parts and pcs. of a robot on the field would also be illegal....either by Robot or Human Player Team Action before or during the match--One must always look at both spirit and wording of rules).

The only items allowed on the field at the beginning of a match are the field elements, and game pcs., and 3 properly identified ROBOTS, Teams may not leave items that are not "The Robots" on the field either, or said match isn't ever supposed to even begin without said Robot being either quickly fixed or disabled...(I fully agree, that tethered & inspected robots, that both fit into the Transport Configuration, Height and Total single individual Team ROBOT WT. Limits, AND ARE FULLY AND PROPERLY IDENTIFIED by the Team Number rule), as long as they do not detach from one another during matches, are legal under the existing ruleset). De-tethered Robots (during a match), should be considered detached (my opinion only), but they are not to be considered so if "accidently done", as previously explained.

2. Who owns and built that ramp (Which team?) But, which team Robot is it really tethered to in the video, and was that built away from the event location? It would then be subject to that teams total Robot WT. or holdover exemptions...Or, better yet, who's 30 lbs. of additional mechanism fabrication holdout allowance is it (the 2 ramps in question), actually being charged to during that specific match or set of matches?).....I read a post by someone from Team 1114 earlier in this thread that explained that it was their "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp," and the other ramp was Team #2's on the Alliance's ramp...But, both ramps are actually tethered to another team's Robot (Robot #3 on the Alliance...Sadly, even moreso..."The New 3rd. team pick Boat Anchor BOT", please don't even get me started on that sad, sad subject), during that match in the video? Cannot even see ramp #2 in the video, also called out by Team 1114, to even see if it is properly Team license plated (per FIRST's DMV 2015 rules...which BTW I fully agree with, this years team # visibility is absolutely great!), like Frank directly said though, it would need to be legally identifyable, or would be "Ruled Illegal."

3. The direct use of a Litter through the Litter Chute to trigger the downward motion of said "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" as a Human Player Trigger off the field of actual robot movement..."acting as a driver, just not electronically done", seemed very questionable to me, but it is now on the exclusions list I guess after updates made since original publications of the 2015 ruleset. (Human Player to robot contact is illegal, "except through either tote through tote chute or litter through litter chute" being exempted). Litter over the HP wall top introduced by HP's while a robot is holding an RC (seen a lot so far this year also), should not, and does not fit that specific exemption either, but has also been allowed many times so far).

4. Items built "at the specific event site only" (not just any event), do not actually count towards anyone's 30 lbs. holdout exemptions, so I can see that IF BUILT AT THE SPECIFIC EVENT SITE using COTS pcs. & spare parts (though once built at an event site, must be added to someones hold out exemption in order to be used at another event site as "a specific set of pre-fabricated from COTS items limited to 30 lbs. total, item built at the event site are exempted"), it could possibly be a shared or loaned device, but as to "THE ROBOT" that is directly called out in R1 repeatedly (each team must submit for inspection, and use what they originally built away from the specific event site (or items built and added at the event site), in matches). Correct or not?

5. I now actually see the absolute "do nothing" during the match 3rd. "very valuable" Alliance member robot hidden on the video by a scoring monitor, though as a tether of choice, I would choose personally another tether color besides Red on a Red Carpet! And I would have at least added 4 more feet to the tether (and a forward auto bit of drive programming for them, up into the auto zone, and teleop 4' drive back), so that at least that team could feel like they were somewhat contributing Alliance members, by attempting a Robot Set, instead of just "a dead wt. tethered boat anchor" for those 2 elite stacking & performing teams. (Yes, I saw that even if they were in the auto zone, the alliance would have not received a Robot Set as 1114 ends up outside the zone in the end, after very nicely completing the yellow tote auto stack). They do get a great chance at a nice Blue Banner for contributing though since those 2 elite teams can stack very well. Yes, I digressed...SRY! (My full apologies to that 3rd. team on the alliance). YOU ARE VERY VALUABLE. My only hope now is you were also rewarded w/ that highly seeked Blue Banner too.
________________________________
I actually earlier in the season floated an off idea to build a set of community owned and built RC collecting & dragging mechanisms (community built at a single event site), to be used only by voluntary participating teams during the Auto Period to get a Can Set similar to 148's falling bridge of Gotham), but wanted to satisfy all the existing rules in the 2015 ruleset...It hasn't gone anywhere yet...But, if 1114 and the other 2 teams in that Alliance seen in the video can get away w/ those, what certainly appear apparent violations in a playoff match...Why go through the trouble of satisfying the "built at the event" requirements as long as the 2 ramps are both 30 lbs. or under, we can just choose the lightest least capable robot in the field at the event as a 3rd. pick to sit still (add our ramps to their bot, and tether to it w/ bright red length of yarn around the inside perimeter of the field).

And we don't even have to abide by the new FIRST DMV license plating rules anymore, as we have a QTR 4 GTRC playoff video as a winning argument now I guess.

There just seems to be so many rules in the ruleset that said alliance violated during that match to me. Just looking for 1 reasonable explaination as to how it could possibly be deemed possibly legal.
_________________________________
It was particularly personally gratifying to see the subject video & so many game pcs. (in a 4 robot (w/ tethered Copy/Paste on 1 Alliance) vs. 2 very high quality stacker robots + and a tethered to 2 ramp fairly dead anchor bot match), all used up in an early week (before week #3 was completed was my earlier prediction), competition event....I counted 29 Stacked Grey Totes for the Red Alliance (nowhere near my wayyy too optimistic earlier prediction though), and 5 RC Stack Caps, though very sadly zero litter in that total of 5 RC's used.

That was a scoring wipeout as also earlier predicted, and if (the shelf RC snatch & grab is sucessful & used properly, will win you the match handily & easily)! I particularly liked seeing the single bot 2 RC snatch & grab beat out the tethered 2 bot 4 RC snatch & grab....Speed is very important (as is total numbers attempted),...but speed & accuracy used together, will usually win out. Now, if all 3 had latched on fully....The results (of the RC snatch & grab at least), may have been a little bit different.

I congratulate both alliances and all 6 teams on the mission, and for all their hard work in completing and competing...I am not questioning them one bit...Just the rules implementation and allowances so far this year. Just looking for reasonable explainations, before we play, not after we play the game.

Subjectivity in rules enforcement is always a touchy game(s) subject w/ me. Just always looking for a level playing field across multiple events leading to world championships (and Champions), since each event is also a Championship qualifying event.

[cglrcng]

I messed up..."Bright Orange Fishing Line"...on red Carpet...Please disregard that other color suggestion then. So sorry. I went back and re-read the posting by 1114.


___________________

Added (tongue firmly in cheek).

To BOTSUP....Yeah, it just wouldn't be right or fitting to have a Boat Anchor present, and not be "fishing for points"...Ergo...Bright orange fishing line used to fish with.....SRY ALL, I just couldn't resist. (Headed to put myself in a timeout now).

[Karthik]

1. Without being told (since there seems to be no visible and required license plates seen in either the up or the down orientation of the ramp during the match on the video, and Frank already explained that "If one has to follow a tether to figure out what robot the tethered robot element is attached to, it would be "ruled ILLEGAL." (As leaving parts and pcs. of a robot on the field would also be illegal....either by Robot or Human Player Team Action before or during the match--One must always look at both spirit and wording of rules).

Inspectors at the event told us that the team numbers weren't necessary, but that we would be required to use them at future events.

2. Who owns and built that ramp (Which team?)

1114 built the ramp and brought it in within our withholding allowance, although much of it was rebuilt from COTS parts during the event. We were prepared to make a new ramp from COTS parts if required by inspectors. We were not, as they told us it was fine to use parts from our withholding allowance on other robots. At the end of the event 1547 kept the ramp to use in future events.


3. The direct use of a Litter through the Litter Chute to trigger the downward motion of said "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" as a Human Player Trigger off the field of actual robot movement..."acting as a driver, just not electronically done", seemed very questionable to me, but it is now on the exclusions list I guess after updates made since original publications of the 2015 ruleset. (Human Player to robot contact is illegal, "except through either tote through tote chute or litter through litter chute" being exempted).

Correct, this is legal for the reasons you stated yourself.

4. Items built "at the specific event site only" (not just any event), do not actually count towards anyone's 30 lbs. holdout exemptions, so I can see that IF BUILT AT THE SPECIFIC EVENT SITE using COTS pcs. & spare parts (though once built at an event site, must be added to someones hold out exemption in order to be used at another event site as "a specific set of pre-fabricated from COTS items limited to 30 lbs. total, item built at the event site are exempted"), it could possibly be a shared or loaned device, but as to "THE ROBOT" that is directly called out in R1 repeatedly (each team must submit for inspection, and use what they originally built away from the specific event site (or items built and added at the event site), in matches). Correct or not?

Again, we went through a full re-inspection with the LRI and everything we did was ruled legal. Many teams have brought parts in for partners in the past. Full court blockers in 2013 were the most popular example of this. Regardless, we were aware that this was a gray area in the rules, hence us checking multiple times with inspectors at the event.

Just the rules implementation and allowances so far this year. Just looking for reasonable explainations, before we play, not after we play the game.

Subjectivity in rules enforcement is always a touchy game(s) subject w/ me. Just always looking for a level playing field across multiple events leading to world championships (and Champions), since each event is also a Championship qualifying event.

Understood. I agree that consistent enforcement of the rules is essential to ensure fairness for all teams across FIRST. These specific rules aren't very clear. FIRST obviously wants teams to be able to help other teams by allowing the loaning of parts. That said, I'm sure they don't want teams circumventing the 30 lb withholding allowance by using 90 pounds of parts from three other teams. I think this is something that should be Q&Aed to ensure that the rule is enforced uniformly across events.

[Michael Corsetto]

1114 built the ramp and brought it in within our withholding allowance, although much of it was rebuilt from COTS parts during the event. We were prepared to make a new ramp from COTS parts if required by inspectors. We were not, as they told us it was fine to use parts from our withholding allowance on other robots. At the end of the event 1547 kept the ramp to use in future events.

Again, we went through a full re-inspection with the LRI and everything we did was ruled legal. Many teams have brought parts in for partners in the past. Full court blockers in 2013 were the most popular example of this. Regardless, we were aware that this was a gray area in the rules, hence us checking multiple times with inspectors at the event.

Understood. I agree that consistent enforcement of the rules is essential to ensure fairness for all teams across FIRST. These specific rules aren't very clear. FIRST obviously wants teams to be able to help other teams by allowing the loaning of parts. That said, I'm sure they don't want teams circumventing the 30 lb withholding allowance by using 90 pounds of parts from three other teams. I think this is something that should be Q&Aed to ensure that the rule is enforced uniformly across events.

Karthik,

I am slightly surprised the inspectors allowed this. I suppose I do not see where the "grey area" in the rules is.

R17 At an Event, Teams may have access to a static set of FABRICATED ITEMS, not bagged per R14, known as the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE, that shall not exceed 30 lbs. to be used to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. The WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE may only be brought into the Venue when the Team initially loads in at the Event. Items made at an Event do not count towards this weight limit.

Emphasis mine.

First Point: Withholding allowance is clearly indicated for use on that teams robot and only that teams robot (hence "their robot").

Second Point: As we all know (and no one is disputing), that withholding allowance must be "declared" during load-in at the event.

What grey area in R17 do you want to see clarified? Has 1114 posted to the Q/A yet?

We specifically planned for this and used all COTS and at-event fabricated items to add RC grabbers to 1323 last weekend. It is clearly workable within the rules, it just requires more resources and time.

-Mike

[Karthik]

Karthik,
I am slightly surprised the inspectors allowed this. I suppose I do not see where the "grey area" in the rules is.

What grey area in R17 do you want to see clarified? Has 1114 posted to the Q/A yet?

Hey Mike,

We just posted the following on the Q&A:

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/461/are-any-of-the-following-situations-legal-a-team-gives-loans-a-component-or-mechanism-to-a-team-that-was-1-brought-in-to-the-event-in-the-giving-teams-robot-bag-2-brought-in-to-the-event-as-pa

We saw it as a grey area because this practice has been allowed numerous times in the past, but the wording makes it seem illegal. It's because of this contradiction that we asked the inspectors about this early and often. If they said no, we would have restarted the ramp from scratch out of COTS parts.

[Nuttyman54]

Hey Mike,

We just posted the following on the Q&A:

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/461/are-any-of-the-following-situations-legal-a-team-gives-loans-a-component-or-mechanism-to-a-team-that-was-1-brought-in-to-the-event-in-the-giving-teams-robot-bag-2-brought-in-to-the-event-as-pa

We saw it as a grey area because this practice has been allowed numerous times in the past, but the wording makes it seem illegal. It's because of this contradiction that we asked the inspectors about this early and often. If they said no, we would have restarted the ramp from scratch out of COTS parts.

Hopefully the GDC will give a reasonable answer without preventing teams from legally helping their peers at the event. This version of the wording of the rules has remained essentially unchanged since 2012. It has been a common practice, and one which has been very beneficial for many teams. For example, adding a shot blocker in 2013 or giving a team a spare intake in 2014 to allow them to inbound/assist.

The challenge this year is that it feels different because in a lot of cases with the passive ramps or with center can grabbers, the receiving team is less of an active participant and more just a thing on the field to attach part of another robot to. It feels different, even though it's legally the same.

Unfortunately the rules do not differentiate FABRICATED ITEMS from parts vs assemblies. If I have some fabricated brackets/gussets/tube stock with holes drilled in it that I want to give a team, that would be technically as illegal as giving them an entire mechanism.

[PAR_WIG1350]

4. Items built "at the specific event site only" (not just any event), do not actually count towards anyone's 30 lbs. holdout exemptions, so I can see that IF BUILT AT THE SPECIFIC EVENT SITE using COTS pcs. & spare parts (though once built at an event site, must be added to someones hold out exemption in order to be used at another event site as "a specific set of pre-fabricated from COTS items limited to 30 lbs. total, item built at the event site are exempted"), it could possibly be a shared or loaned device, but as to "THE ROBOT" that is directly called out in R1 repeatedly (each team must submit for inspection, and use what they originally built away from the specific event site (or items built and added at the event site), in matches). Correct or not?

This set may be changed
between events (i.e. a Team may leave a different set of items out of the bag and/or fabricate new items to bring to their next event) provided
the total weight of FABRICATED ITEMS brought to the next event does not exceed thirty (30) lbs

Just to clarify, if items built at an event or brought to an event as part of a team's WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE are bagged with the robot at the end of that teams first event, Then those items would not count against that team's WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE at their second event.

[cglrcng]

"Inspectors at the event told us that the team numbers weren't necessary, but that we would be required to use them at future events."


"Understood. I agree that consistent enforcement of the rules is essential to ensure fairness for all teams across FIRST. These specific rules aren't very clear. FIRST obviously wants teams to be able to help other teams by allowing the loaning of parts. That said, I'm sure they don't want teams circumventing the 30 lb withholding allowance by using 90 pounds of parts from three other teams. I think this is something that should be Q&Aed to ensure that the rule is enforced uniformly across events.

____________________
Karthik

1.) I fully appreciate (my friend), you answering my questions directly...But, the subjectivity of which "The Volunteer FIRST Officials" allowed your team (And the entire Alliance, in my personal opinion only), to violate the rules based on answer 1 stated above...Means to me that "unless ALL teams are allowed to violate the same rules equally" from event to event this entire season....There is only individual subjectivity. (Never a good thing as I stated, every event is a Championship Qualifying Event) The results of that event, qualify you to compete at Championships....All 3 Teams. And others not to compete there.

Frank fully and completely answered the question "if anyone has to track the tether back to find out what robot it is attached to, it will be deemed ILLEGAL." Evidentally....ILLEGAL...Unless it's not.

2.) IF the rules aren't very clear...There is the Q & A to get clarification. All Teams & Team members reqistered w/ FIRST FRC in Tims have access "before competing", to both the questions asked & answers given on the further clarifying each rule questioned.

Which is what I said....It isn't a team issue (I expect you to attempt, IF ALLOWED, or simply put, your team to get away with what you interpret the rules actually mean).

But, that is why we have OFFICIALS, INSPECTIONS, and further RULES interpreters such as GDC's Q & A...It IS AN OFFICIATING ISSUE. AND SUBJECTIVITY between multiple events, teams, locations. (It is never "It is OK This time...But, next time it will not be".....It is always, that satisfies the rules (DEEMED LEGAL)...Or, I'm sorry, That Does Not satisfy the rules (DEEMED ILLEGAL), or, I'll check to see if that is legal for you. It is why they call them RULES.

FRANK officially clarified in writing further the rule the OFFICIALS perportedly allowed your alliance to violate. That isn't your issue, that is THEIR issue I take umbrage with. But it is now your Banner, Title, OPR, fantastic work product and gameplay, and team legacy a little subjectivity puts slightly at risk. Which is a shame in my mind, as the last thing someone should mess (IMHO), with is "a near perfectly designed, created, and working Robot for the game and an absolutely great team!" (No, 3 teams, and your competition, and every other team playing the game the entire FRC season).

Secondly...I understand loaning parts (Team 60 loans plenty of parts and COTS Items, we help plenty of teams even assemble their and our loaned parts, if they are not ready come competition time, if you are at an event and our team is there, come see us)...But, we do not loan teams entire pre-fabricated whole mechanisms that were/are a part of our built "THE Robot" as defined in R1 or our pre-fabricated 30lb. allowance, as Al kindly listed R1.

Hey, if 30 lbs. is good...90 must be better....(If you allow 1, you must allow the other!)

It just does not fit the "Teams shall have access to a set of static pre-fabricated items not to exceed 30 lbs., that shall be referred to as the witholding allowance" definition in my interpretation.

I agree if you had brought the "Legal COTS items & spare parts" to the event, & actually built it there, it would not count towards anyones withholding allowance. Nor anyones original "THE Robot" as referred to in R1. I went so far as to suggest a (community provided, owned, built onsite project...To test that ruleset). And I agree with you, materials, you loan it, they now own it now type of philosophy (except for tools & money of course)...Great job there!

One more question my friend...What is the combined Total WT. of your Team 1114 Robot (as weighed at the event using the official FIRST Inspection scales), and the Team 1114 pre-Fabricated "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" in question that was loaned....If I can respectfully ask that? (I just want to make sure I have all the actual facts, and leave my personal supposition fully on the table.
_________________________________
As I read (and re-read), the answers...I realized I was right....It ACTUALLY ISN'T Legal for all FRC teams to make pick #3 the bo(a)t anchor using our pre-fabricated & loaned out, but unidentified (as 2015 FRC required by the Robot ruleset), ramps. So, the SUBJECTIVITY OF THE OFFICIATING sucks for just everyone else.

The 2015 (Change, change, change is coming!), Ruleset is all that matters in the 2015 Game....What was legal in years before does not matter. Period. Subjectivity in rules application is never fair. And, it should always be highly discouraged.

I'll certainly (in the name & spirit of GP), totally drop the subject now here. Sincerely though Karthik, I thank you for the question answers given so far (I truly do appreciate them), and hope you will answer the Combined WT. question posed later. I think I already have all the "Is it...or was it really 2015FIRST FRC legal" answers I need, now firmly grasped.

____________________________
NOTE: None of the above or any post I make on CD represents any FIRST Team whatsoever, whenever....It represents only my personal thoughts, questions, opinions, and feelings.

[Karthik]

One more question my friend...What is the combined Total WT. of your Team 1114 Robot (as weighed at the event using the official FIRST Inspection scales), and the Team 1114 pre-Fabricated "Ramp, Ramp, Ramp" in question that was loaned....If I can respectfully ask that?

Our robot's final weight was 119.4 lbs. The ramp weighed about 7.5 lbs. Thus the combined weight you requested in 126.9 lbs. However, when the ramp was tethered to 1547, its weight increased, as they transferred some ballast from 1547's main robot to the ramp. 1547's main robot weighed about 90 lbs prior to the addition of our ramp and 610's ramp. (610's ramp which was entirely built on site during the competition)

[cglrcng]

That was a great question to pose to the Q & A...And correctly and fully worded...Something I was looking for an answer to also weeks ago during build season that I am interested in seeing answered too (the built at the event part from COTS items). Yes, I thought about actually stretching rules too, without bending and/or breaking any of the published 2015 ruleset. And doing so as a voluntary community project (previously posed & published weeks ago here on CD).

Please, everyone understand I was questioning just something I saw on the video link posted here in this thread, and looking at it in its entirety (adding in the 1114 post, to the video evidence, after I read the entire thread to that point, digesting all "the parts & pcs." that I understood at that time), & was questioning only the legality of that w/ the ruleset all must go by this year, and could not understand how all parts of the whole, when put together as used, could poissibly be legal for all FRC teams competing in 2015 to do in the same, in the manner they were used. (The not labelling w/ the "required License Plates" also had full bearing on all my questioning)....Because I saw Frank's Blog Post concerning tethered Robot Pcs. too!

"Inspectors at the event told us that the team numbers weren't necessary, but that we would be required to use them at future events."


That answer was what really muddied the water for me. It does not match..."would be deemed ILLEGAL."

Please understand....I am not questioning anyones ethics or accomplishments thus far....I am only questioning "Subjectivity in Rules Enforcement." It always leads to an unlevel playing field for all. A Week 1 event is just as important as a final week event, all matches & events determine the Championship qualifiers & invitees.

I was also looking at "Can we do that too?" Is it really fully 2015 FRC legal? Mainly because the first time I looked at the video I didn't see more than 2 Red Alliance Robots, and no tether whatsoever...So I read the whole thread, and took everything I had an answer on at that time (some suppositions Karthik cleared up, some he clarified & confirmed...TY my friend), and then I went and read the rules that applied again, and still didn't think it satisfied all of them along w/ the supplemental published clarifications. Then posed the questions here.

Sry for creating a manure storm. But, curious minds still wish to know the GDC Q & A answers to.....As, I thought I'd parsed (and picked the game apart a million ways), the game pretty well weeks ago.

[cglrcng]

Karthik,

Thank you for the Combined Wt. Answer...and your candor/honesty, and the added clarification of weight transfer when tethered to the other robot. (That also helps a ton, pun intended).

I'll assume (since the total was in excess of 125 lbs. total), that it was weighed with your robot originally at initial inspection as a part of your specific 30 lbs. of pre-fabricated witholding allowance and declared at load-in, if bagged w/ your robot....But, I also assume (maybe wrongly), that it was built to loan, and not necessarily to use tethered to 1114.

And, I will assume IF you did intend on using it w/ your robot at any time - directly tethered to 1114, that you would have had to remove some weight on your robot to be under the max. wt., re-inspected and re-weighed. I personally have not YET seen any vids except the QTR 4-GTRC Vid (but am headed that way to look up and watch all I can, to see how it was used in other matches, or even if it was during Q's and other Playoff rounds). I like to have seen or questioned all avail. evidence, before I comment beyond questions I can possibly find. Curious minds just (still), like to know...

Ahhh, I'm getting in a lot deeper than originally planned here, I'll stop, go watch vids, wait for the GDC Q & A answer(s), then maybe post back later.

Thanks all...Especially you Karthik.

[Karthik]

I'll assume (since the total was in excess of 125 lbs. total), that it was weighed with your robot originally at initial inspection as a part of your specific 30 lbs. of pre-fabricated witholding allowance and declared at load-in, if bagged w/ your robot....But, I also assume (maybe wrongly), that it was built to loan, and not necessarily to use tethered to 1114.

It was built both as possible addition to our robot if we could make it lighter and loose weight on our main robot, or as a device to use for our partners. And yes, the parts that were pre-cut or pre-assembled were included in our withholding allowances. The raw materials, that ended up being part of it, naturally were not.

And, I will assume IF you did intend on using it w/ your robot at any time - directly tethered to 1114, that you would have had to remove some weight on your robot to be under the max. wt., re-inspected and re-weighed.

Correct. We have some weight loss contingencies, but decided the trade offs and effort weren't worth it at the time.

Thanks all...Especially you Karthik.

You're welcome. I'm looking forward to the Q&A response as well.

[cglrcng]

I appreciate the back and forth conversation...Though, I probably should have taken it to PM long ago.

As I try hard to leave this alone, my brain just won't let me...Someone explain to my brain how...IF under R1 (a portion says in part)..."...The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game –power, communications, control, and movement."

Let me break that down into both word & spirit of rules segments AS I PERSONALLY SEE THEM; not everybody has to though....

The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required...
...to be an active participant in the game -...
...power, communications, control, and movement.

So, the intent is that the robot have the parts required, the robot be assembled, to be able to be powered, communicate, be controlled, & move or cause movement....A BOX of parts placed on the field does not work and is specifically exempted. (My addition; So, ergo, let them show their stuff).

Then, why was/is it necessary for The Human Player to trigger the movement of the ramp into downward motion by pushing with a litter through the litter chute? (And I am not saying it is illegal to do so, as I know about the contact w/ a robot from outside the field, "is exempt" as long as it is litter through the chute...Yes, Litter Chute)....I'm referring to Robot Rule R1 only. I fully understand tethering or leashing...but a dumber leash or tether you cannot possibly find in this game. That 1547 robot controlled those ramps in no real way whatsoever, nor moved them, or even itself, an inch in that entire match. (How hard to add to the ramp, 1 motor, 1 long PWM cable to the bright orange tether, a little programming code, and hook it up to their actual 3rd partner bot, and make it a true partner in the game. (IF actually deemed legal & proper to continue to do so in the future).

I feel a bit sorry for that team, and all the hard work, time, dedication, & expense involved in building their robot (not to mention the per event large entry fee)...I hope they have a pretty Blue Banner, a title & a Champs invite & an invite to play with you at "THE BIG SHOW TOO" (and I'm definitely sure they do have at least some of that, by now...though nobody could plan that last part to actually happen ;-), too many variables there, & variables are actually doubled this year), to show for it.

If they aren't complaining...Then who am I to? (Personally though, I'd be working on at least a robot set w/ the other suggestions above, so they actually feel as though they contributed to actual points scored in matches played). I just don't subscribe to the "well if it is advantageous to us, then go for it" part of the party. On the other hand...I'm sure they agreed to those parameters, and will assume, before the actual pick too. It is the nature of the beast...But, I'll also encourage a bit more inclusion, as others repeatedly have here too. I do agree with showing all your individual talents...But, they don't call it a "3 Robot Alliance" for nothing.

[s_forbes]

IF under R1 (a portion says in part)..."...The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game –power, communications, control, and movement."

This rule has always bugged me a little bit. Most rules are designed to constrain what you're allowed to do during a match. This one tries to set a lower limit on what you must be able to do. I would think that a simple passive slide that moves totes from the loading station to the near platform would fit the intent of the game, but fails according to R1. Regardless of the year, it doesn't seem that having a completely passive mechanism gives an unfair advantage or breaks the game, so what's the point of R1?


As far as ramps go, I expect to see a plethora of them at champs this year.

[cglrcng]

I expect to see a plethora of them from now on (starting this week), if it is deemed "still legal for all teams to do" and not just "Subjective Officiating" at a single event for a single Alliance. (I have no proof that is the current case, the jury is still out BTW). Only questions and very curious minds remain.

Anything that helps faster, high powered stackers get those totes closer to the scoring zone, and gets more off field totes on the field, faster without the inconvienence of the fast stacker being tethered/leashed to their other Actual Robot Portion, and unclutters the HP Stations (should save some time), and make it easier on the Elite high powered teams to score higher....And a lot harder for the lower qualified, mainly lighter 3rd. picks willing to sit still and "get tethered or leashed" for the "Good of the Alliance" and a possible Pretty Blue Banner, and so much more.

For that matter, I'll throw my original idea weeks ago in the trash, of building a pair of on-site community provided, built, and owned clamp or bolt on, Auto RC Collectors (not from the shelf), similar to 148's only clamped on many lesser capable Robot(s), or those that just want the added capabillity, and have room for the added wt.. (all each volunteer community robot would need is an avail. motor speed controller, pre-wired to accept a common plug in, and the approx. 5lb. avail. added wt. space, able to be fitted to bolt or clamp it on in a reasonable period of time, and be able to drive forward 5', and a willingness to participate).

The idea came to me long before I saw 148's bot (for gaining the RC Set for those that can only drive straight into the zone, & opening up that 3 Yellow Tote Stacking Set to more possibillities in Auto since the RC's would be gone, but out of the way possibly scoring both sets & stacks much more often, thereby raising many of the PA's higher across the board).

The "build a pr. idea" was so both Alliances could use 1 each per match on at least 1 bot each side. I was trying to see if it would even fly in the existing ruleset, then attempt to actually do it as a community at possibly a single event (East Phoenix)....Lots of time to "community build it" on Thursday in Phoenix since there are no practice matches until at least Noon on Thursday. Nobody bit, so I dropped it.

Building onsite Ramps (as long as you didn't design one already into your robot, and not everyone designed a Robin or a conveyer belt in like a few I've seen already), is the smart deal if you all want higher personal PA's (and who doesn't). 1 would promote more robot & team participation, the other just a wee bit less.

Forget that...Just Do Both! Every team can spare just a few bucks, and at least 1 team member on Thursday. What is built at the event, is just considered free shop time, w/ fewer controls. (All that is necessary is willingness, split cost of resources, split cost of time, and a little design work, a small area to work, mentor/student participation, community desire & teamwork, and a wee bit of massive organization). The payoffs can be community huge though. Raffle off the pcs. for charity (Winners get to add it to their bagged bot before leaving the event), and do it again next event if there are again willing attendees. (What is a 1-3 hr. build season compared to 6Weeks+?)

[Sperkowsky]

I wonder if making a bunch of simple lexan ramps (5) and bring them to the competition with us is a good idea. We can give them away to teams in need.


OK this thread has gone off track but it's still a good discussion.

I'm thinking the best easy design is 50-75 feet of mason line and a bent lexan ramp. Any thoughts?

[Fusion_Clint]

I wonder if making a bunch of simple lexan ramps (5) and bring them to the competition with us is a good idea. We can give them away to teams in need.


OK this thread has gone off track but it's still a good discussion.

I'm thinking the best easy design is 50-75 feet of mason line and a bent lexan ramp. Any thoughts?

I'm not sure how useful it be will be unless you have a robot that is willing to not move. The tether touching a stack, eliminating it from scoring, is a serious problem for a passive tether and a mobile robot.

[cglrcng]

This rule has always bugged me a little bit. Most rules are designed to constrain what you're allowed to do during a match. This one tries to set a lower limit on what you must be able to do. I would think that a simple passive slide that moves totes from the loading station to the near platform would fit the intent of the game, but fails according to R1. Regardless of the year, it doesn't seem that having a completely passive mechanism gives an unfair advantage or breaks the game, so what's the point of R1?


As far as ramps go, I expect to see a plethora of them at champs this year.

Hey Steve...It says movement (nothing about driving at all), have you not seen our amazing Israeli friends bot (sry, I don't have the Team # handy right now, Team name starts w/ an "H"...Hassam something I believe, my sincere apologies to the team), but it is a conveyer belt from HP station to the closest Scoring Platform, and a killer stacker there, w/ mini bot RC Collector delivering the RC's to the stacker too on the other side, a real fast tight 6 stacker RC capper and solid wall creator, now w/ litter fed from the floor or litter chute into the RC's via the mini bot. A real gem of a robot (it appears to possibly give 148, 1114, 254 and many others a possible real run for the money too), and the only part that actually drives is the minibot...But tons of other movement is involved in that true unbelievable Rube Goldberg Contraption. As they build stacks, they push the previous stacks completed down the scoring platform...actual solid wall like.

I guess the point is that it is a robot competition...Build a robot and you can compete, build nothing, you cannot compete. R1 is just the basic minimums to be able to compete. Anyone (who tries at least), can build a basic robot that satisfies R1 w/ just the basic kit bot pcs. and a minimal bit more expended on parts to accomplish those minimal items listed in R1.

Some can build miraculous ones also w/ a bit more effort, money, time, energy, and ideas. NHRA won't let you competitive drag race without an automobile, truck, or motorcycle....Try to enter foot racing or on a pedal powered bike....Nope.

(Though I once won a bike doing so, and the 2 of us that won the bikes were allowed...no, actually required (for the Popular Hotrodding Mag photos), to race once w/ the bikes through the 1/4...exceptions to every rule I guess...But, the race was over at that point also).

I won....I was young, he was old & slow...Though, he certainly had more insurance! And drove a much faster car. And we were racing heads up. If it was a bracket race we would have had to write our dial-in's on our chests in shoe polish. (Nowhere on the bikes to put the E.T. Dial in).:rolleyes:

[cglrcng]

I'm not sure how useful it be will be unless you have a robot that is willing to not move. The tether touching a stack, eliminating it from scoring, is a serious problem for a passive tether and a mobile robot.

It certainly is, just watching a vid of a Bot stacking on their own powered end of a tether made me cringe for them. A dangerous & possibly self defeating act. Reminded me of "Here, hold my yeast flavored adult beverage....And, Watch This!":ahh:

[cglrcng]

I am not one to ever delete anything posted (add to as an edit yes, subtract from after it was posted to and read / responded to), is to take the post "out of context" and possibly make it (or replies from others), possibly appear dishonest.

But, after reading Franks Blog post tonight about the Resolution concerning The Dallas Regional Final matches (a great resolution and a really great post, actions, and thoughts), I wish to ammend all my posts in this thread, wherein I typed the phrase "Subjective Officiating" to (without actually changing each post for the reason given above), "less than proper consideration for the rules to ensure fairness", as I never believed it was actually intentional on anyones direct part to provide any advantage. And, I now believe that they have (conducted a review of similar instances), plans & proper action are in place to change the situation in the near future.

Proper and fair resolution of problems (along with better training), when things do eventually go haywire (and they will), is all we can ever ask for. FIRST has some of the very best employees & volunteers in the world....My thanks to each and every one of them.

[Chris is me]

As I try hard to leave this alone, my brain just won't let me...Someone explain to my brain how...IF under R1 (a portion says in part)..."...The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game –power, communications, control, and movement."

I don't understand how you're interpreting this rule to mean "every part of every robot must be able to move", and how this makes a tethered ramp illegal.

Also worth keeping in mind is that in 2013, several teams did not have the ability to drive at all - they just hung from the bar.

[Christopher149]

I don't understand how you're interpreting this rule to mean "every part of every robot must be able to move", and how this makes a tethered ramp illegal.

Or how about a robot like Stretchy & Fetchy? The main part of the robot is the non-driving bit.

[Kevin Leonard]

Or how about a robot like Stretchy & Fetchy? The main part of the robot is the non-driving bit.

For the record, movement in a robot isn't necessarily interpreted as driving around the field, it's just movement relative to the robot.

And I don't see how this conversation relates to ramps.

Team 78 had a tethered piece of their robot by the human player station. It looked like a tote with their numbers on the sides from the webcast, but I can't be sure. Thats a relatively simple solution that can turn any robot with a forklift into a decent HP stacker.

[dkavanagh]

We were at the Toronto East Regional yesterday and decided we also needed a tethered ramp. We decided to cut a grey tote and it worked out exceptionally well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdb_uN4r8_Q

That is in the practice field. In competition, if we lined up with the end of the ramp, we could sit still and feed an internal stacker our robot employs. We're stacking at the speed of the human feed station! Once we sorted out some robot issues, our day turned out pretty well.

We used a braided nylon line for our tether. So far, no issues with it getting caught in the wheels.

David

[GeeTwo]

IF under R1 (a portion says in part)..."...The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game –power, communications, control, and movement."
This rule has always bugged me a little bit. Most rules are designed to constrain what you're allowed to do during a match. This one tries to set a lower limit on what you must be able to do. I would think that a simple passive slide that moves totes from the loading station to the near platform would fit the intent of the game, but fails according to R1. Regardless of the year, it doesn't seem that having a completely passive mechanism gives an unfair advantage or breaks the game, so what's the point of R1?
I don't believe that the goal of the GDC was ever to eliminate passive components of robots, especially as an assist to one or more actuators of the "main" robot. Examples would include spring-loaded grippers, passive rollers on elevators and ramps, and all those "ramp-lock" 10-point climbers for Ultimate Ascent which converted robot kinetic energy into potential energy. On the other hand, one of the clear design goals that persists through the years is to allow the referees, through the FMS, to disable the robot. Otherwise, why the requirement for certification of active MXP devices, among others? If an active robot function is allowed to continue after the electronics is shut down, this appears to be outside of the GDCs intent, even if they have not put adequate rules in place to make it so.

Honestly, the GDC's (ok, maybe FRC legal's) worst nightmare would be a robot that was entirely spring loaded and ran about the field operating autonomously. They just plain couldn't stop it, even though it was destroying field elements and tossing game pieces at passing volunteers and spectators. Even the GDC has to have a bit of a Frankenstein complex in these litigious days. If you think I'm just getting silly with the possibilities of mechanical robots, look up Heron of Alexandria.

[s_forbes]

Honestly, the GDC's (ok, maybe FRC legal's) worst nightmare would be a robot that was entirely spring loaded and ran about the field operating autonomously.

But.... that sounds like the greatest thing imaginable!

I would still argue that if a team designed a completely passive robot (no stored energy, no actuators, no battery, just a structure that you put on the field that helps an alliance) it should be permissible. The challenge that we were given at the beginning of build season requires that we score lots of points. If you can solve this challenge without using electrically stored energy or actuators, then you should be able to take that approach.

[engunneer]

But.... that sounds like the greatest thing imaginable!

I would still argue that if a team designed a completely passive robot (no stored energy, no actuators, no battery, just a structure that you put on the field that helps an alliance) it should be permissible. The challenge that we were given at the beginning of build season requires that we score lots of points. If you can solve this challenge without using electrically stored energy or actuators, then you should be able to take that approach.

If you can make that machine, I'm sure you can find room for a minimal control system to make it legal. You don't have to use any wago terminals from the PDP.

[GeeTwo]

But.... that sounds like the greatest thing imaginable!
As a designer, yes. From the GDC's perspective, not so much.

I would still argue that if a team designed a completely passive robot (no stored energy, no actuators, no battery, just a structure that you put on the field that helps an alliance) it should be permissible. The challenge that we were given at the beginning of build season requires that we score lots of points. If you can solve this challenge without using electrically stored energy or actuators, then you should be able to take that approach.
The GDC has decided to require a few components be connected in specific ways. This does not mean that you need to connect them to any actuators, unless I really missed something. Passive components are passive components, and are, by nature, not susceptible to being disabled. Or, as engunneer has posted:

If you can make that machine, I'm sure you can find room for a minimal control system to make it legal. You don't have to use any wago terminals from the PDP.

[cglrcng]

We were at the Toronto East Regional yesterday and decided we also needed a tethered ramp. We decided to cut a grey tote and it worked out exceptionally well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdb_uN4r8_Q

That is in the practice field. In competition, if we lined up with the end of the ramp, we could sit still and feed an internal stacker our robot employs. We're stacking at the speed of the human feed station! Once we sorted out some robot issues, our day turned out pretty well.

We used a braided nylon line for our tether. So far, no issues with it getting caught in the wheels.

David
________________________________
My main question would be, and has always firstly been....Did you then put the REQUIRED Robot # License Plate(s) of appropriate size on your tethered ramp?

As FRANK posted as a clarification earlier in the season..."....If someone has to follow a tether to figure out which robot the additional robot pc. belongs to it would be deemed ILLEGAL per the blue box." (Not the actual direct quote).

It is a simple solution to a simple problem. All Robot sections must be identifiable to team # as one ROBOT (no matter how many pcs. that Robot consists of).

I never argued that static tethered/leashed ramps were illegal. (Unless of course they are not properly identified per the Robot numbering rules, or part of someone elses static set of pre-fabricated holdout wt. per R17 only useable on their robot, or a section of their original Robot per R1).

Made at the event by a single - or multiple teams, inspected & weighed w/ someones Robot who uses it, and identified properly by whatever robot it is tethered/leashed to, should certainly satisfy all those rules IMHO (but, I'm not the rulemakers/decider)...It appears that proper Jury is still out by the Q & A as it still appears unanswered by a check moments ago.
_______________

That ramp appears to do the job perfectly as to getting the first tote on the field in a consistantly upright flat position. Good Job. (Still needs proper # plating though according to the published ruleset & supplementals).

[dkavanagh]

Yes, we did add appropriate team number markings on all 4 sides of the ramp.
We also were allowed to detach the ramp for matches where we worked the landfill. We were told a simple re-inspection is required, but it's more of a formality.

[EricH]

We also were allowed to detach the ramp for matches where we worked the landfill. We were told a simple re-inspection is required, but it's more of a formality.

Talk to your LRI about the implications of T9 (especially the second sentence) on that ruling. You shouldn't need reinspection AT ALL if you were inspected with the ramp and haven't changed anything otherwise.

Just sayin'.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Eric et al,
You should read the Q&A for an explanation. If an attachment requires you to remove weight so that you can add it to stay under 120 lbs., then you are required to get an inspection. If you remove that attachment and then add something else, you need an inspection. See Q429. If you remove the added part to go back to your original configuration you must be reinspected.

Please be aware that this may come at a price. The required re-inspection will not hold up any matches. We will do what we can to accommodate teams who are making changes.

As always, this year's rules may not apply next year.

[mac]

Do you have any recommendations for cheap light cable or wire. My first thought is red 16 or 14 gauge wire. But being I'm no mechanical expert I'm not sure if that's optimal.

Yes. Make sure you use solid wire. It will be easy to shape and form. It won't flex up on you. Thank You Thomas (just give me a crabcake) McCubbin

[FrankJ]

Q461 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/461/are-any-of-the-following-situations-legal-a-team-gives-loans-a-component-or-mechanism-to-a-team-that-was-1-brought-in-to-the-event-in-the-giving-teams-robot-bag-2-brought-in-to-the-event-as-pa) has some application to teams giving other teams prefabricated parts. It is a little long so go read the link for your self. It essentially says team cannot share pre-fabricated parts. Team may assist other teams in fabricating parts at the competition. So based on this answer, you cannot tether your ramp to another teams robot. You can help them fabricate a ramp.

Please do not take this as my judgment to what was or was not legal at competitions I did not attend.

[cgmv123]

Yes. Make sure you use solid wire. It will be easy to shape and form. It won't flex up on you.

Solid wire will inevitably fail if it's used in an application where it can move (like almost anywhere on a robot, but especially as a tether, even if it's not carrying current). You want to use stranded wire.

[Karthik]

Q461 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/461/are-any-of-the-following-situations-legal-a-team-gives-loans-a-component-or-mechanism-to-a-team-that-was-1-brought-in-to-the-event-in-the-giving-teams-robot-bag-2-brought-in-to-the-event-as-pa) has some application to teams giving other teams prefabricated parts. It is a little long so go read the link for your self. It essentially says team cannot share pre-fabricated parts. Team may assist other teams in fabricating parts at the competition. So based on this answer, you cannot tether your ramp to another teams robot. You can help them fabricate a ramp.

Please do not take this as my judgment to what was or was not at competitions I did not attend.

Here's the pertinent wording:

"Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above."

This is quite the interesting take. For the past 10 seasons we've had a specific subgroup on our team called a "Fix-It Crew" that goes around building parts for and helping teams in need. Many times teams have been so desperate that we've made parts for them (typically bumpers) without their help. I guess this is no longer legal.

[Racer26]

Here's the pertinent wording:

"Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above."

This is quite the interesting take. For the past 10 seasons we've had a specific subgroup on our team called a "Fix-It Crew" that goes around building parts for and helping teams in need. Many times teams have been so desperate that we've made parts for them (typically bumpers) without their help. I guess this is no longer legal.

I agree Karthik, this clarification certainly seems to outlaw actions which I have seen and/or participated in at nearly every FRC event I've ever been to.

There also seems to be a very difficult line in the sand to draw there between "A helped B build X at the event for B's robot" and "A built X for B at the event". It might sound on the surface like an easy distinction to draw, but to have an inspector actually try to enforce it?

[RonnieS]

Here's the pertinent wording:

"Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above."

This is quite the interesting take. For the past 10 seasons we've had a specific subgroup on our team called a "Fix-It Crew" that goes around building parts for and helping teams in need. Many times teams have been so desperate that we've made parts for them (typically bumpers) without their help. I guess this is no longer legal.

I would be very interested in getting a more direct answer to things like you mentioned your team does. I know we have the same "crew" and have helped team like that as well. I am not sure why this wouldn't be aloud...99% of the time, the teams requiring the extra help, aren't the ones competing to be on top. They are the ones just trying to make it to the field to do something at least. I mean this year, even if you give that team with a drive train a ramp to use, it will let them do way more than before; that shouldn't be discouraged.
-Ronnie

[jvriezen]

Here's the pertinent wording:

"Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above."

This is quite the interesting take. For the past 10 seasons we've had a specific subgroup on our team called a "Fix-It Crew" that goes around building parts for and helping teams in need. Many times teams have been so desperate that we've made parts for them (typically bumpers) without their help. I guess this is no longer legal.

I would like to see a future rule whereby at competition, any 'work' on the robot must involve at least two members of the robot's team, unless all members of the robot's team are already working on other parts of the robot or software. For example, if a veteran team is going to build bumpers for a rookie team at a regional, at least have two team members from the rookie team helping out, unless the team only has four members and they are all helping to build the drive train. Helping to build bumpers may be as simple as 'pull this fabric taut while I staple it' -- at least they see how it is done.

[GreyingJay]

I agree Karthik, this clarification certainly seems to outlaw actions which I have seen and/or participated in at nearly every FRC event I've ever been to.

There also seems to be a very difficult line in the sand to draw there between "A helped B build X at the event for B's robot" and "A built X for B at the event". It might sound on the surface like an easy distinction to draw, but to have an inspector actually try to enforce it?

I guess it depends on the definition of "helped"?

If team B had one member involved in measuring, designing, applying fasteners... does that count as A helping team B?

If team B provides some amount of parts and materials, does that count?

I would like to see a future rule whereby at competition, any 'work' on the robot must involve at least two members of the robot's team, unless all members of the robot's team are already working on other parts of the robot or software. For example, if a veteran team is going to build bumpers for a rookie team at a regional, at least have two team members from the rookie team helping out, unless the team only has four members and they are all helping to build the drive train. Helping to build bumpers may be as simple as 'pull this fabric taut while I staple it' -- at least they see how it is done.

Ah, we both had the same idea but you beat me to it.

[FrankJ]

Here's the pertinent wording:
...
This is quite the interesting take. For the past 10 seasons we've had a specific subgroup on our team called a "Fix-It Crew" that goes around building parts for and helping teams in need. Many times teams have been so desperate that we've made parts for them (typically bumpers) without their help. I guess this is no longer legal.

I think you are correct. But if you had at least one member of the other team present and being taught even if your team was doing all the work it would meet the spirit and the letter of the rule. The old "teach a team to fish" adage."
I expect that is mostly what teams like yours does anyway.

[rich2202]

"A helped B build X at the event for B's robot" and "A built X for B at the event".

Not much different from: Did a mentor build it, or did a mentor help a student build it.

IMHO: Bring along one member of Team B to help do what they can to build the part for Team B's Robot.

If Team B needs that much help, sometimes they don't have the ability to constructively help build the piece. Hopefully by bringing them along, the person learns something they can bring back to the Team when they build next year's robot.

[Richard Wallace]

Here's the pertinent wording:

"Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above."

This is quite the interesting take. For the past 10 seasons we've had a specific subgroup on our team called a "Fix-It Crew" that goes around building parts for and helping teams in need. Many times teams have been so desperate that we've made parts for them (typically bumpers) without their help. I guess this is no longer legal.it appears that this Q&A response makes it illegal for an AC to give a pre-fabricated ramp to their second-round pick. The two teams must work together to make the ramp. I predict a lot of work like this during lunch, just after alliance selection.

[Karthik]

I think you are correct. But if you had at least one member of the other team present and being taught even if your team was doing all the work it would meet the spirit and the letter of the rule. The old "teach a team to fish" adage."
I expect that is mostly what teams like yours does anyway.

Yup, agreed. I wish they had added this to their response, as it would have eliminated this newly created grey area.

[JB987]

I bet a lot more teams will be bringing in a lot more raw materials to their events now, and lunch will be skipped on many alliances as they work feverishly to help their 3rd bots upgrade with ramps or can burglars for playoffs.

[mwmac]

I bet a lot more teams will be bringing in a lot more raw materials to their events now, and lunch will be skipped on many alliances as they work feverishly to help their 3rd bots upgrade with ramps or can burglars for playoffs.

Giving serious thought to setting up a pvc pipe outlet store in the parking lot of our next event:)

[FrankJ]

Giving serious thought to setting up a pvc pipe outlet store in the parking lot of our next event:)

Fund Raiser? Can I get a corn dog with that?

[JB987]

Giving serious thought to setting up a pvc pipe outlet store in the parking lot of our next event:)

LOL...add some lexan and aluminum angle stock and string/wire you're set for life:D

[Abhishek R]

LOL...add some lexan and aluminum angle stock and string/wire you're set for life:D

Zip ties and duct tape make for great concessions at the cashier.

[Richard Wallace]

Fund Raiser? Can I get a corn dog with that?

Hmmm....

Corn dog can burglar ramp?

[Lil' Lavery]

Here's the pertinent wording:

"Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above."

This is quite the interesting take. For the past 10 seasons we've had a specific subgroup on our team called a "Fix-It Crew" that goes around building parts for and helping teams in need. Many times teams have been so desperate that we've made parts for them (typically bumpers) without their help. I guess this is no longer legal.

Well, last year it was ruled that bumpers are no longer part of "the robot," so I think that specific example is legal.

[carpedav000]

So, if I understand correctly, the rule states that you cannot give a team pre-fabricated ASSEMBLIES, but I don't see any reason why you can't give a team pre-fabricated PARTS and help them put the assembly together. Am I wrong on that?

[Siri]

So, if I understand correctly, the rule states that you cannot give a team pre-fabricated ASSEMBLIES, but I don't see any reason why you can't give a team pre-fabricated PARTS and help them put the assembly together. Am I wrong on that?Can you explain where your impression of this comes from? The Q&A does not make this distinction. Actually, R17 doesn't either: it works with regard to any "fabricated item" which is defined as any "component or mechanism" (your 'part' or 'assembly').

[carpedav000]

Can you explain where your impression of this comes from? The Q&A does not make this distinction. Actually, R17 doesn't either: it works with regard to any "fabricated item" which is defined as any "component or mechanism" (your 'part' or 'assembly').

I honestly do not know where my impression of that came from, just me thinking of alternative ways to legalize giving other teams a ramp of your own teams design.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I would like to see a future rule whereby at competition, any 'work' on the robot must involve at least two members of the robot's team, unless all members of the robot's team are already working on other parts of the robot or software. For example, if a veteran team is going to build bumpers for a rookie team at a regional, at least have two team members from the rookie team helping out, unless the team only has four members and they are all helping to build the drive train. Helping to build bumpers may be as simple as 'pull this fabric taut while I staple it' -- at least they see how it is done.You're going to have some serious difficulty squaring this with safety and efficiency in an on-site machine shop.

And when you fix that one, you're going to have to patch it again to explain why that patch shouldn't apply to a mini lathe/mill in a team's pit.

Plus there's enforcement issues, defining "work" on a robot, what about all those CSAs upgrading firmware and software with minimal team input...

[EricH]

Eric et al,
You should read the Q&A for an explanation. If an attachment requires you to remove weight so that you can add it to stay under 120 lbs., then you are required to get an inspection. If you remove that attachment and then add something else, you need an inspection. See Q429. If you remove the added part to go back to your original configuration you must be reinspected.

I was assuming that they were simply removing the ramp, after having been inspected with it initially--no replacements of other stuff.

Al, I believe T9 covers the bolded portion: You can play with a subset of inspected mechanisms, without reinspection (assuming, of course, that no other rules would be violated). If Q&A is overriding that, then I think Q&A needs to be reminded about "Team Experience" (and maybe that reminder needs to be issued anyways).

Example (just to pick on my own team): 1197 has a ramp and tether. We are under the weight limit with the ramp aboard, and have passed inspection with it (on more than one occasion). Let's assume that we decide to play without the ramp for one match. What you seem to be saying--correct me if I'm wrong--is that we need to reinspect both for that one match AND for the following match where we carry the ramp again, even though the ramp previously passed inspection, and we are simply playing with a subset of inspected mechanisms for that one match. I say that T9 covers that situation, and states quite clearly that we can play without it for a match and add it back on for the next one without needing reinspection (provided no other changes are made that would require reinspection).

[rich2202]

So, if I understand correctly, the rule states that you cannot give a team pre-fabricated ASSEMBLIES, but I don't see any reason why you can't give a team pre-fabricated PARTS and help them put the assembly together. Am I wrong on that?

There is no difference between pre-fabricated "assemblies" and "parts". Either it is COTS, and it is not subject to the holdback, or it is "fabricated", and subject to the holdback. The holdback is specific to the team, and thus cannot be shared.

IMHO, there are 3 types of parts.
1) Bag of parts
2) Parts assembled into a component
3) Modified items

Bag of parts are COTS (as long as they can be easily purchased).
Modified items are Fabricated.

Then there is the bag of parts that are intended to be assembled. Gear boxes fall into this category. Q452 gets close to this (ok to make modifications as directed by the Manufacturer). When used as intended by the manufacturer, the part is still considered COTS. So, IMHO, an assembled gearbox is still COTS, as long as only the original parts are used. If you swap out gears, then it is no longer COTS. The blue box in R10 is also relevant. If the item is a "component" for BOM purposes, then I think it should also be COTS.

However, it doesn't take long to assemble a gearbox, and it is probably beneficial to the receiving team to have practice putting it together.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Rich,
There is but it depends on what part of the rules you discussing. Fabricated parts whether assembled or not, must fit into the 30 lb. withholding allowance if brought in by the team at load in. If a team makes parts at the event and gives these parts to another team to assemble (in this discussion, cut aluminum, pvc, lexan, etc.) and the receiving team then must build a mechanism from those parts, I believe that satisfies R1. The Team built it. Parts are not assemblies or mechanisms. Gracious Professionalism demands that we assist other teams whenever needed.
A bag of parts may or may not be COTS. If they are COTS they are not part of the withholding allowance. If they are assembled into a mechanism(s), then they are modified and are part of the withholding. If it is pre-cut parts for a particular assembly then it is not COTS. If it is just raw aluminum of random length and must still be cut to be used for an assembly than it is COTS material. Teams have been able to get under the 30 lbs, by leaving COTS parts unmodified, carrying them into the venue and assembling the remainder of the mechanism at the event which is legal.

[cglrcng]

Honestly, the original GDC ruling was exactly in line with the rules. Not the tradition, but the rules. It sounds like now we need to figure out what the rules are, all over again, two days before competition. As I called out to one of our team members a week or so back as we made an adjustment that he wasn't prepared for: "Welcome to engineering!" When I got the (fully expected) blank stare, I followed up with "Rule 1: Requirements change!". That was completely spontaneous, but now I'm tempted to come up with the ten rules of engineering. Or do they already exist somewhere?

Quoted from http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135836&page=15
___________________________
Wow!...."Change is REALLY coming", in fact it is here all over again! (I'll remind some, that part of this years Game Reveal video was the FORMER FIRST FRC RULEBOOK being recycled ~actually thrown in the trash can or recycling can/bin)....Along with "NO Required Bumpers." (Yet many keep referring to previous years rules in arguments about the 2015 FRC Rules Interpretations).

We each, must take the things we like about that situation of "Change is Coming", and understand there will be changes we like, and changes we don't necessarily like. Games we like, and games we don't like as much necessarily. Rules we like, and rules we sometimes absolutely hate, usually because it does not fit our personal ideas of how we wish the game to be played, usually to our own personal design advantages.

I'm sry to have caused a crapstorm by asking a few honest questions about legality of play already completed w/ the existing 2015 ruleset a week ago, but, I'm not sorry with the actual ending results folks.

I spent the majority of my time since Game Release Day this year parsing the game (researching what it is that "the elite winning teams do differently", than most other teams (my youngest Son graduated and headed off to college last summer, and I have taken a break from hands on mentoring this year),...So, I read/watched a lot of 1114 & 254 Mentor input out there too!),...And spent a ton of time just thinking of what I personally would do, to build a robot that would contribute highly to a winning Alliance in Recycle rush. Then I went and watched the game actually played.

What I saw and then read here on CD, happening in Weeks 1~3 (were what appeared to be massive unintentional published rules violations IMO only, and I could only see that it was going to continue, and possibly get even worse as the season progressed), as wins were often the result. So, I asked a few very detailed questions in this thread.

It wasn't because I personally believed people or teams wanted to intentionally violate the "as published 2015 ruleset." It was IMO because FIRST FRC is a culture & has set traditions, the culture is to help themselves, and other teams WIN matches, titles, awards, and Championships and grow through the use of STEM together as a community, and change is also never easy for most people.

I am glad that, as of now, all teams that already played weeks 1~3, and those left to play Weeks 4~the last match at the Championships in 2015, will all be playing on the same level playing field now, due to the actual rule changes instituted by the rules jury (The GDC), today.

But, as Gee Two so eloquently put it in the other thread (& quoted above), that (I think), helped the jury (GDC), reconsider the existing ruleset, and the original "No, No, No Answer" to Karthik's 1114 Team Q & A 3 part Question(s) posed to the GDC in Q461. And, with the GDC taking into account the CD/FRC community input, the revised answer of now "Yes, Yes, Yes (With specific limitations)", seems to be fairer to all....Actually levels the playing field throughout all the gameplay.

My hat is off to all participants on CD, and the GDC and Frank.

Once the original Q & A Question(s) (Q461) were posed, I went about my daily work, checking in occasionally to see if it (they), was answered, got busy, and actually missed the original Q461 answers, and the resulting mess.

Tonight, I checked back in to CD (said WOW!), and had a lot of reading to catch up on (the balance of the RAMPS thread here), the previous GDC A461 & the revised A461 answers, the recent UPDATES today, and the entire thread at; http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135836
then thought a lot, before posting this input.

Nobody can say that FIRST, Frank and The GDC do not take input from the FRC & CD communites as a whole. They certainly do! (The Jury spoke, they marched the condemned robots to the gallows, along the way, gears started grinding very loudly the closer to the gallows they got, and then all those grinding gears were greased heavily, and The Jury reconsidered & simply changed the 2015 rules to fit the very well & long fostered community culture & traditions in the FIRST FRC Community....The playing field was again leveled in 2015 for all.

Amazingly I find, some parties are still arguing about the (re-weigh/re-inspection), ruling (that has been the same year in/out lately, BTW), and those arguing "it is just a formality" are arguing (IMHO urinating), into the wind!....It is THE RULE, and is REQUIRED for many good reasons. Get over it. (Examples; You do not want to get caught unaware later overweight, do you?, Or, out of legal specs?...It could possibly invalidate all your matches that came before, or since that allowed robot change). That would not be good for anyone.

Like I said earlier...I like the changes made today (the rules are now more in line w/ the traditions and culture fostered greatly in the FIRST FRC Community), and wish all teams competing good luck!

3 major issues (major non-littering noodle agreements~solved before week 1, game pcs. both on/off field & robots touching them~solved before week 1, now major team contributions to other teams~solved after week 3), this year were solved by the GDC (w/ their very careful consideration, & much CD community input).

Let's hope no more serious ones are found in 2015. (Though, always thinking outside the box, will absolutely always do that to a community!)

Teams....Go have fun!

_____________________________________________
Everything I do or say here on CD (or elsewhere), represents only my personal opinions...Not any team whatsoever. The rules are what they are...work within them, or if you don't like them, work to get them changed (I can fully respect that).