Team Update 1

[SteveGPage]

http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resource_library/frc/game-and-season-info/competition-manual/2016/01.pdf

Update 1 has been released.

G11 issue settled!

[MikLast]

It seems its a little late (time wise, not date wise) for this to be released, good catch!

[EricH]

Well, that settles the G11/G21 discussions pretty thoroughly.

[orangemoore]

It seems its a little late (time wise, not date wise) for this to be released, good catch!

The manual stated most Team Updates would occur by 5pm eastern Tuesdays and Fridays. My guess this one took longer to get ready than it will as the season progresses.

The update to G21 is clear but potentially concerning.

[MikLast]

Google Cardboard images of the FIRST STRONGHOLD field from Kickoff

pretty sure thats new...

[Hallry]

pretty sure thats new...

New, but awesome. Here are the direct links:

Blue End: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016BlueEnd.vr.jpg
Center: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016Center.vr.jpg
Red End https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016RedEnd.vr.jpg
Spy Box: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016SpyBox.vr.jpg

[TimTheGreat]

The update to G21 seems a little too much. It's not a clarification, but an entirely different rule. Why'd they make it regardless of who touches who?

[EricH]

The update to G21 seems a little too much. It's not a clarification, but an entirely different rule. Why'd they make it regardless of who touches who?
You haven't seen the discussions on this, have you?

Basically, the situation was that if Blueabot was in RedaPassage, and Redabot came along and hit Blueabot, TECHNICALLY (due to the usage of "contact" as a verb), Blueabot didn't contact Redabot, so Blueabot doesn't get a penalty; Redabot is blocked from using RedaPassage (potentially), and Redabot is at risk of a G11 for trying to cause Blueabot to get a penalty (but there's a risk of it going to Blueabot for a strategy aimed at trying to get Redabot a G11 penalty).

By clarifying that it's regardless of who initiates the contact, the GDC ensures that the Passage remains open, the G11 loop doesn't start, and removes any ambiguity. But, they also allow Blueabot (in the above example) to enter, thus ensuring that a different chokehold (hoarding balls in the Passage) doesn't happen.

[Tom Line]

The update to G21 seems a little too much. It's not a clarification, but an entirely different rule. Why'd they make it regardless of who touches who?

This is the same setup as the basketball reintroduction areas in 2012. You can go in, at your own risk. And WOE be to the team who does this and loses for their entire alliance. It's the GDC's way of telling you it'd be a really good idea not to risk going in.....

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'm kinda surprised they didn't tack the same wording onto G28 to cover courtyard contact in the last 20. The G11 blue box A section implies the same "regardless of who initiates contact" interpretation.

[rich2202]

G12-1 ROBOTS may not use FIELD elements, e.g. BOULDERS, to interfere with the operation of other FIELD elements, e.g.
DEFENSES

How do I use a boulder to defeat a defense?

If the Boulder props open the door so I can back of into the neutral zone?

If the Boulder is in the moat, and I drive over the boulder?

I wonder what prompted that clarification?

I noticed there wasn't any clarification regarding spys and carrier pigeons.

[SteveGPage]

How do I use a boulder to defeat a defense?

If the Boulder props open the door so I can back of into the neutral zone?

If the Boulder is in the moat, and I drive over the boulder?

I wonder what prompted that clarification?

I noticed there wasn't any clarification regarding spys and carrier pigeons.

Not to defeat the defense, but jam it up. Specifically, there was concern that a boulder jammed under the CdF from the courtyard side, would cause it to be unpassable.

I'm sure the carrier pigeons update will be forth coming!

Steve

[IronicDeadBird]

Looks like the GDC reacted solidly to several whispers on the wind. I hope they are ready for the true storm when Q+A shows up.

[cglrcng]

How do I use a boulder to defeat a defense?

If the Boulder props open the door so I can back of into the neutral zone?

If the Boulder is in the moat, and I drive over the boulder?

I wonder what prompted that clarification?

I noticed there wasn't any clarification regarding spys and carrier pigeons.

3 words "Cheval de friese" (boulder under while robot going over equals real trouble!)

No drones.....Lol.

[bduddy]

Hard to disagree with the intent, but the "intent" wording of the new blue box opens up a gigantic can of worms for referees.

[Sunshine]

Teams playing defense just got a whole lot harder

[RoboTigers1796]

Teams playing defense just got a whole lot harder

My question right now is.

Scenario:
RED robot is scoring boulders in BLUE Courtyard.
There is a BLUE robot playing defense against that RED robot.
RED robot has no boulders available except for one sitting in BLUE Secret Passage.
RED robot travels into BLUE Secret Passage in attempt to pick up the boulder.
BLUE robot sees them traveling in to the Secret Passage to retrieve the boulder, follows them in, and continues playing defense (bumping, pushing, mainly trying to get between RED robot and the boulder, etc). Would this be a G11?

I would argue it is not a G11 and is in fact a G21 because they are not trying to intentionally cause a TECH FOUL, they are trying to play defense and keep an offensive robot from retrieving a game piece. However to an untrained eye, or maybe a passing glance by a ref, it would appear to be a G11 because of the repeated contact by BLUE onto RED in the Secret Passage and they could see it as trying to rack up TECH FOULS.

Or maybe I'm reading the update completely wrong and it would always be a G11 on the BLUE robot?

[kitare102]

My question right now is.

Scenario:
RED robot is scoring boulders in BLUE Courtyard.
There is a BLUE robot playing defense against that RED robot.
RED robot has no boulders available except for one sitting in BLUE Secret Passage.
RED robot travels into BLUE Secret Passage in attempt to pick up the boulder.
BLUE robot sees them traveling in to the Secret Passage to retrieve the boulder, follows them in, and continues playing defense (bumping, pushing, mainly trying to get between RED robot and the boulder, etc). Would this be a G11?

I would argue it is not a G11 and is in fact a G21 because they are not trying to intentionally cause a TECH FOUL, they are trying to play defense and keep an offensive robot from retrieving a game piece. However to a untrained eye, or may be a passing glance by a ref, it would appear to be a G11 because of the repeated contact by BLUE onto RED in the Secret Passage and they could see it as trying to rack up TECH FOULS.

Or maybe I'm reading the update completely wrong and it would always be a G11 on the BLUE robot?

How I read the rules, if two robots make contact, the robot in the opposing team's secret passage gets the foul. So, in your example, the BLUE robot would indeed always get the foul.

[notmattlythgoe]

How I read the rules, if two robots make contact, the robot in the opposing team's secret passage gets the foul. So, in your example, the BLUE robot would indeed always get the foul.

I think you have this backwards. RED would get the penalty.

G21 A ROBOT contacting carpet in the opponent’s SECRET PASSAGE may not contact opposing ROBOTS, regardless of who
initiates the contact.

[guniv]

New, but awesome. Here are the direct links:

Blue End: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016BlueEnd.vr.jpg
Center: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016Center.vr.jpg
Red End https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016RedEnd.vr.jpg
Spy Box: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016SpyBox.vr.jpg

Yeah, this is really cool. Definitely bringing in my cardboard today for the game strategy team to play with.

[Kevin Sevcik]

My question right now is.

Scenario:
RED robot is scoring boulders in BLUE Courtyard.
There is a BLUE robot playing defense against that RED robot.
RED robot has no boulders available except for one sitting in BLUE Secret Passage.
RED robot travels into BLUE Secret Passage in attempt to pick up the boulder.
BLUE robot sees them traveling in to the Secret Passage to retrieve the boulder, follows them in, and continues playing defense (bumping, pushing, mainly trying to get between RED robot and the boulder, etc). Would this be a G11?

I would argue it is not a G11 and is in fact a G21 because they are not trying to intentionally cause a TECH FOUL, they are trying to play defense and keep an offensive robot from retrieving a game piece. However to an untrained eye, or maybe a passing glance by a ref, it would appear to be a G11 because of the repeated contact by BLUE onto RED in the Secret Passage and they could see it as trying to rack up TECH FOULS.

Or maybe I'm reading the update completely wrong and it would always be a G11 on the BLUE robot?That's a good followup Q&A since it's not clear. I'd lean towards that being a G11. I think the GDC thinks of the game objectives more as the scoring, etc. objectives outlined in the rules. Defense isn't seen as playing the game. At least not in the same sense as doing one of the scoring tasks in the rules. Thus the rule against disrupting the flow of "the game" by playing particularly effective defense.

Also, in your scenario it's a lot easier to argue that the BLUE robot really is trying to draw a foul on RED. BLUE is actively threatening RED with a penalty for the sole purpose of keeping RED from collecting that ball.

All that said, RED can turn that right around by tagging BLUE in the SP and then continuing on to bulldoze the ball in any particular direction. Then it's obviously a G21 by blue box standards.

So yeah, chasing boulders in an enemy secret passage is an extremely dangerous activity with enemy robots nearby.

[aldaeron]

Dangit - they still did not resolve the ambiguity of how thick the drawbridge door is. Field drawing says 1/8, manual says 1/4. I want to know how bendy it is. I can't imagine it is the 1/8, but I don't want to buy some and be wrong (it's a big piece!).

[TogetherSword8]

G11 Blue Box Part B


A Red ROBOT is parked in the NEUTRAL ZONE near the Blue
SECRET PASSAGE. A Blue ROBOT pushes the Red ROBOT into
the Blue SECRET PASSAGE, then drives away. There is no violation
of G21 by the Red ROBOT, as the Red ROBOT was forced by the
Blue ROBOT into the SECRET PASSAGE. The Blue ROBOT has
violated G11 by forcing the Red ROBOT into the SECRET PASSAGE
for the sole purpose of causing them to violate G21.

The way I read this, obviously the Red robot is not penalized. However, is it now allowed to return through the path blocked by G21, or is the Red robot allowed to break G21 to return to its original position without incurring any penalties, as a G11 was imposed on it?

[jee7s]

Looks like they put section 4 of the administrative manual in as section 4 of the game manual in the latest update. So, I don't have full detail on the bumper rules, but...

This seems to make at least some types of scaling a disabling offense:

G19-1 ROBOTS must be in compliance with Section 4 (4.7 BUMPER Rules) throughout the MATCH.
Violation: DISABLED

...B. A ROBOT deploys a MECHANISM which lifts the BUMPERS outside the BUMPER ZONE (when virtually transposed onto a flat floor). This violates R22

That's a contradiction that needs to be cleared up.

There may have been some comment about an exception to bumper rules while scaling in Section 4.7, but like I said, the admin section 4 is in the new game manual, and I don't have a second copy.

[MisterG]

Dangit - they still did not resolve the ambiguity of how thick the drawbridge door is. Field drawing says 1/8, manual says 1/4. I want to know how bendy it is. I can't imagine it is the 1/8, but I don't want to buy some and be wrong (it's a big piece!).

Both the Sally Port and the drawbridge have two pieces of .125" sandwiched together (for a total of .25").

From GE-16048 DOOR ASSEMBLY, DRAWBRIDGE

NOTE: The real FRC Field will have two pieces of
.125" Polycarbonate positioned back-to-back for
asthetic purporses only. They will be secured such
that the differences don't alter game-play, or the
function of the Drawbridge.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Dangit - they still did not resolve the ambiguity of how thick the drawbridge door is. Field drawing says 1/8, manual says 1/4. I want to know how bendy it is. I can't imagine it is the 1/8, but I don't want to buy some and be wrong (it's a big piece!).There's a note on drawing GE-16048 that says the real field will have two back-to-back pieces of 0.125 for aesthetic purposes, attached to be functionally equivalent to 0.25.

I suspect the original design had a single 0.25" piece with wood print on one side. They obviously realized that would scar very easily, and are now going with the 0.125 sandwich with the wood print in the middle.

EDIT: And sniped. Ah well.

[jijiglobe]

Looks like they put section 4 of the administrative manual in as section 4 of the game manual in the latest update. So, I don't have full detail on the bumper rules, but...

This seems to make at least some types of scaling a disabling offense:





That's a contradiction that needs to be cleared up.

There may have been some comment about an exception to bumper rules while scaling in Section 4.7, but like I said, the admin section 4 is in the new game manual, and I don't have a second copy.

Fairly certain that the way this rule is phrased, it means that your bumpers must stay fairly static relative to the chassis. Basically, if you put a piece of plywood underneath all the wheels(or tread) on the bottom of your robot and consider that to be the floor, your bumpers must stay within the 4-12 inches off of the plywood.

This rule is meant to stop people from making designs that remove their bumpers for any reason. Similar to the height rules that allow for lenience when the robot is not oriented straight

[jee7s]

Fairly certain that the way this rule is phrased, it means that your bumpers must stay fairly static relative to the chassis.

That's covered by R23 and R21-G. And, it's not fairly static, it's truly static as those rules read:
R21-G [Bumpers] must attach to the FRAME PERIMETER of the ROBOT with a rigid fastening system to form
a tight, robust connection to the main structure/frame

R23 BUMPERS must not be articulated (relative to the FRAME PERIMETER).

Basically, if you put a piece of plywood underneath all the wheels(or tread) on the bottom of your robot and consider that to be the floor, your bumpers must stay within the 4-12 inches off of the plywood.

This rule is meant to stop people from making designs that remove their bumpers for any reason. Similar to the height rules that allow for lenience when the robot is not oriented straight

Actually, I think the rule is more related to having a robot that articulates the drivetrain. Nothing would prohibit a robot that raises and lowers so long as the bumpers stay within the bumper zone. Under that logic, it seems that jacking up your robot from below with a scissor lift to scale the tower is a disabling offense, where pulling yourself up to the rung is not. That's where the clarity needs to be made.

[Doug Frisk]

G11 Blue Box Part B



The way I read this, obviously the Red robot is not penalized. However, is it now allowed to return through the path blocked by G21, or is the Red robot allowed to break G21 to return to its original position without incurring any penalties, as a G11 was imposed on it?

It's essentially like I called it a couple of days ago. The defending team owns the secret passage and anything they're doing there is strategic game play. If there is a boulder in the secret passage the attacking team can go in and attempt to steal it, but they better be quick because if a defender touches them, the attacker gets the penalty.

If you're going for a boulder in the SP, be fast, don't be slow and don't get touched.

[dieDoktor]

That's covered by R23. And, it's not fairly static, it's truly static as R23 reads:




Actually, I think the rule is more related to having a robot that articulates the drivetrain. Nothing would prohibit a robot that raises and lowers so long as the bumpers stay within the bumper zone. Under that logic, it seems that jacking up your robot from below with a scissor lift to scale the tower is a disabling offense, where pulling yourself up to the rung is not. That's where the clarity needs to be made.

So, and I think I already know the answer, if a robot was made so that, in the last 20 seconds, the frame supporting the bumpers(not the bumpers alone) was raised the two feet to be above the goal BUT the wheels remained on the ground, this would be a violation correct?

[Kevin Leonard]

Actually, I think the rule is more related to having a robot that articulates the drivetrain. Nothing would prohibit a robot that raises and lowers so long as the bumpers stay within the bumper zone. Under that logic, it seems that jacking up your robot from below with a scissor lift to scale the tower is a disabling offense, where pulling yourself up to the rung is not. That's where the clarity needs to be made.

I don't believe this rule update cleared up the questions about Ri3D 1.0's climb where their robot tilted entirely making their bumpers vertical and whether or not that violated the 15" Extension rule.

Although with the emphasis on measuring the robot as it would be flat on the ground, I'd assume that Ri3D 1.0's climb would indeed be illegal.

[notmattlythgoe]

So, and I think I already know the answer, if a robot was made so that, in the last 20 seconds, the frame supporting the bumpers(not the bumpers alone) was raised the two feet to be above the goal BUT the wheels remained on the ground, this would be a violation correct?

As I read it, correct. That would be a violation.

The intent seems to be that your robot can't get into a configuration so the bumpers are out of the zone that would cause you to miss another robot's bumpers in a collision.

[jee7s]

So, and I think I already know the answer, if a robot was made so that, in the last 20 seconds, the frame supporting the bumpers(not the bumpers alone) was raised the two feet to be above the goal BUT the wheels remained on the ground, this would be a violation correct?

That's the basic picture. But, it's also where the contradiction comes in. If I'm not fully supported by the tower, what else am I supported by? By the new G19-1, it seems I can't lift myself from below (be supported by the floor), or do anything to change the bumper height relative to the floor such that the bumpers leave the bumper zone. I could be supported by another robot on my alliance, so long as I am touching the rung. So that opens a possibility. But, barring that, the combination of rules says that I need to lift my robot from above, not jack it up from below.

Also, I second Kevin Leonard's point. This calls into question the legality of the Ri3D 1.0 robot's scaling mechanism. That design either violates the new G19-1, since the bumpers are vertical, or it may violate the 15 inch rule for extensions beyond the frame perimeter. If I consider the floor to be the plane at the robot's wheels when it's folded up, then does that mechanism extend 15 inches beyond the bumpers? I can't tell from the video.

[MrJohnston]

That's a good followup Q&A since it's not clear. I'd lean towards that being a G11.....So yeah, chasing boulders in an enemy secret passage is an extremely dangerous activity with enemy robots nearby.

I also believe that it would be a G11: It is clear that robots are supposed to, effectively, have the right-of-way in their own secret passage. If a robot is already actively playing defense and its opponent goes into the defender's secret passage, I would think that the defender would still be permitted to play defense. Forcing the defender to back-off would undermine the purpose of the passage...

From the looks of it, even if there is no defense being actively played, going into the opposing secret passage will be dicey... It seems that there are going to be more than a few short robots about and one could, very unexpectedly, go racing through the low bar after the same boulder the daring offensive robot might be chasing...

[dieDoktor]

Also, I second Kevin Leonard's point. This calls into question the legality of the Ri3D 1.0 robot's scaling mechanism. That design either violates the new G19-1, since the bumpers are vertical, or it may violate the 15 inch rule for extensions beyond the frame perimeter. If I consider the floor to be the plane at the robot's wheels when it's folded up, then does that mechanism extend 15 inches beyond the bumpers? I can't tell from the video.

Bear with me here while I try to make sure I understand the issue. So because the robot rotates during its scale, it would violate R22 as it being transposed would have the entire assemblage vertical and now very tall, but not in the zone correct?
I do not understand how it violates the 15 in rule however. Could you explain that please?

[jee7s]

Bear with me here while I try to make sure I understand the issue. So because the robot rotates during its scale, it would violate R22 as it being transposed would have the entire assemblage vertical and now very tall, but not in the zone correct?
I do not understand how it violates the 15 in rule however. Could you explain that please?

If the top of the mechanism that grips the bar is more than 15" above the frame perimeter in the folded state, then the Ri3D 1.0 Robot violates G18.

[JesseK]

Effectively, [G19-1] and [R22]'s blue box stipulate that a robot which has bumpers at the lowest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the entire robot more than 3" without incurring a [G19-1] penalty. Robots which have bumpers at the highest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the robot at all.

What about if a robot pops a wheelie (intentionally or not)? Disabling for popping a wheelie could be a huge swing in a match...

As a side note, I expect this to need to be demonstrated at inspection.

[notmattlythgoe]

Effectively, [G19-1] and [R22]'s blue box stipulate that a robot which has bumpers at the lowest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the entire robot more than 3" without incurring a [G19-1] penalty. Robots which have bumpers at the highest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the robot at all.

What about if a robot pops a wheelie (intentionally or not)?

As a side note, I expect this to need to be demonstrated at inspection.

I agree with your assessment Jesse. I would expect that a wheelie would not be an issue because it is not a normal orientation for the robot to be sitting in.

[JesseK]

I agree with your assessment Jesse. I would expect that a wheelie would not be an issue because it is not a normal orientation for the robot to be sitting in.

Yea, the [G19-1] penalty is huge. Hope they clarify it, and the clarification errs on the side of better gameplay rather than strictness.

[T3_1565]

Effectively, [G19-1] and [R22]'s blue box stipulate that a robot which has bumpers at the lowest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the entire robot more than 3" without incurring a [G19-1] penalty. Robots which have bumpers at the highest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the robot at all.

What about if a robot pops a wheelie (intentionally or not)? Disabling for popping a wheelie could be a huge swing in a match...

As a side note, I expect this to need to be demonstrated at inspection.

The way I read it is if your robot has a mechanism that raises the whole chassis (including bumper) the only way it would pass inspection is if at its lowest point the bumpers are in the BUMPER ZONE, and at its highest point the bumpers are still in the BUMPER ZONE.

Wheelies and a like are not included in this rule. Flipping sideways is not included in this rule. the flipping Ri3D bot seems to break the 15" outside of FRAME rule though. In my opinion.

[rich2202]

Actually, I think the rule is more related to having a robot that articulates the drivetrain. Nothing would prohibit a robot that raises and lowers so long as the bumpers stay within the bumper zone. Under that logic, it seems that jacking up your robot from below with a scissor lift to scale the tower is a disabling offense, where pulling yourself up to the rung is not. That's where the clarity needs to be made.

I am thinking that jacking up to clear defenses would be a problem. Jacking up for climbing tower purposes should not be.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Bear with me here while I try to make sure I understand the issue. So because the robot rotates during its scale, it would violate R22 as it being transposed would have the entire assemblage vertical and now very tall, but not in the zone correct?
I do not understand how it violates the 15 in rule however. Could you explain that please?The question is whether the 15" is always measured from the bumpered frame perimeter:
A. projected onto the plane of the floor.
B. projected onto the plane defined by the original frame perimeter/bumpers/wheels.
C. some other dynamically determined frame perimeter.

I don't think C is a valid interpretation, thanks to the repeated declarations that the FP is fixed and not articulated. Given the updated bumper ruling and the robot height ruling with everything relative to robot orientation instead of world orientation, A is unlikely. I think the most likely interpretation is B.

For Ri3D 1.0, the bot is clearly illegal if the measurement is A. It's so tall that the bumpers are well beyond 15" away from the mechanism. I don't think this is the likely interpretation, though. In the B case, I'd have to get a tape measure to determine the legality. It looks borderline-ish, but it's a rigid mechanism, so it's easy to put the robot on the ground and measure.

No, my real concern is going to be short bots with tape measure/single point winch lifts. If the robot tilts over sideways during the lift, it seems highly likely that the tape measure will be outside the 15" envelope until the robot completes its lift. I'm going to pose that one to the GDC as soon as the Q&A opens, since I don't think it's been consistently called or even thought about in the past. In 2010, for instance, the cheesy poofs' tape measure lift would've been illegal under this interpretation. Although in this game, the penalty is a 5 pt foul and eventual disabling, which is still a net 5 pt gain.

[notmattlythgoe]

I am thinking that jacking up to clear defenses would be a problem. Jacking up for climbing tower purposes should not be.

What do you have to support this?

[Kevin Sevcik]

I am thinking that jacking up to clear defenses would be a problem. Jacking up for climbing tower purposes should not be.There's no exception to the bumper or frame perimeter rules that states they're not applicable in the last 20 seconds or when a team is attempting a scale, so I'm going to say jacking up is still illegal even for climbing purposes.

[Chris is me]

The first thing that came to mind when seeing the SCALE verbiage change was that there must be another way to scale above the line without putting weight on the rung. (The change being: full supported by tower > in contact with).

But you seem to believe that lifting your entire bot from the bottom (stilts or whatever) violates the bumper rules (even if the wheels go up). Is that correct?

That leaves me puzzled as to what other legal options exist to raise your bot above the goal line that aren't supported by the tower.

Yes, the update is completely unambiguous. You can't raise your bumpers up in the air while keeping your robot on the ground, regardless of any other things that you raise up in the air that aren't your bumpers (frame, wheels, etc) without breaking this rule. You'll have to find another way to climb the tower.

A possible intent for them not using "fully supported by" language would be to allow teams to score points even if, for example, they were parked on top of another robot. (Not saying that's a good idea)

[RufflesRidge]

(The change being: full supported by tower > in contact with).


They changed the glossary definition to match what the manual text said. The bullet points for scale said nothing about "fully supported" now the glossary doesn't either.

[Kevin Sevcik]

A possible intent for them not using "fully supported by" language would be to allow teams to score points even if, for example, they were parked on top of another robot. (Not saying that's a good idea)I'm telling my team you suggested this, since our running joke is designing for robots driving on top of us, even if it doesn't make sense.

Also with the in contact language, it seems like it might be possible for you to scale by doing a hand-stand with maybe something to touch the rung? Depends on how they want to interpret whatever you stick up through your now upside down base to touch the rung.

[Libby K]

A possible intent for them not using "fully supported by" language would be to allow teams to score points even if, for example, they were parked on top of another robot. (Not saying that's a good idea)

My first-read-through thought on why they removed that language was maybe to make it clear that robots who hang on the RUNG but are not supported by the wall (or any other part of) of the tower still count?

My question is, why would a team choose to SCALE by parking on another robot when CAPTURE needs each robot in its own zone?

[Cal578]

They changed the glossary definition to match what the manual text said. The bullet points for scale said nothing about "fully supported" now the glossary doesn't either.
This also means refs don't need to worry about what percentage of the robot's weight is supported by the rung. For example, it's almost guaranteed that a climbing robot will be touching the tower wall, and there's friction, so it could be argued that the tower (without the rung) is partly supporting the robot. With this wording, that's irrelevant (which is a good thing).

... My question is, why would a team choose to SCALE by parking on another robot when CAPTURE needs each robot in its own zone?
Yeah, a capture is much more valuable. But I suppose that if you know your alliance can't make the capture, and if the only way you can get any scale for your alliance is to help another robot by allowing it to climb on top, I guess you could try. Still, I can't imagine that would be a team's build strategy.

[rich2202]

B. A ROBOT deploys a MECHANISM which lifts the BUMPERS outside
the BUMPER ZONE (when virtually transposed onto a flat floor). This
violates R22.

SCALE: an act performed by a ROBOT, such that at the conclusion of the MATCH, it is in contact with a unique RUNG, and has all of its BUMPERS fully above the height of the low GOALS.

I just realized that the R22 change prevents you from making a robot that:
1) touches the Rung; and
2) Lifts its bumpers above the line (and leaves the rest of the robot behind).

[jee7s]

My question is, why would a team choose to SCALE by parking on another robot when CAPTURE needs each robot in its own zone?

Well, there's some good cheesecake for this year. Maybe a bit far fetched, but here's a scenario that gets 3 scales plus a CAPTURE with only 2 robots actually doing the lifting...

Team A cheesecakes Robot B to have a simple mechanism that dispatches a rare earth magnet and some string on an arm. Robot A (Team A's robot) is designed for another robot to drive on top of it and then lift both robots. Robot B drives on top of Robot A. Robot A lifts both so that both sets of bumpers are above the low goals. Robot B then extends the arm to bring the magnet close enough to the empty rung to touch it and "stick" to it via the magnetism. Robot C scales or has scaled the remaining side of the tower.

A ROBOT has SCALED or CHALLENGED a unique face of the TOWER if it is the only ROBOT in contact with the attached RUNG and/or associated third of the BATTER below (i.e. a ROBOT may extend over the divider into the space of another face as long as it is not in contact with the RUNG or BATTER in front of that face)

In the above scenario, Robot A is the only robot in contact with Rung 1. Robot B is the only robot in contact Rung 2. Robot C is the only robot in contact with Rung 3. But, the bumpers of all three robots are above the low goal and only two robots did the lifting.

[pfreivald]

I just realized that the R22 change prevents you from making a robot that:
1) touches the Rung; and
2) Lifts its bumpers above the line (and leaves the rest of the robot behind).

That was true in the first place--the bumpers have always had to stay in the robot's BUMPER ZONE.

[Jon Stratis]

No, my real concern is going to be short bots with tape measure/single point winch lifts. If the robot tilts over sideways during the lift, it seems highly likely that the tape measure will be outside the 15" envelope until the robot completes its lift. I'm going to pose that one to the GDC as soon as the Q&A opens, since I don't think it's been consistently called or even thought about in the past. In 2010, for instance, the cheesy poofs' tape measure lift would've been illegal under this interpretation. Although in this game, the penalty is a 5 pt foul and eventual disabling, which is still a net 5 pt gain.

Note that the 2010 rules specified a "finale configuration" volume that robots had to remain in. They specifically stated the the other rules about extending past the frame perimeter did not apply while the robot was touching the tower and in its finale configuration. IIRC, the finale configuration was a 82" diameter, 90" tall right cylinder, with respect to the floor.. Different rules this yearcheer is NOT working equicalent to 2010, so I don't think we can go with the assumption that it's the same.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Note that the 2010 rules specified a "finale configuration" volume that robots had to remain in. They specifically stated the the other rules about extending past the frame perimeter did not apply while the robot was touching the tower and in its finale configuration. IIRC, the finale configuration was a 82" diameter, 90" tall right cylinder, with respect to the floor.. Different rules this yearcheer is NOT working equicalent to 2010, so I don't think we can go with the assumption that it's the same.Whoops, forgot about that. I was just skimming the 2010 rules for frame perimeter stuff. So unsurprisingly, 254 was legal that year, but probably wouldn't be this year.
Well, there's some good cheesecake for this year. Maybe a bit far fetched, but here's a scenario that gets 3 scales plus a CAPTURE with only 2 robots actually doing the lifting...

Team A cheesecakes Robot B to have a simple mechanism that dispatches a rare earth magnet and some string on an arm. Robot A (Team A's robot) is designed for another robot to drive on top of it and then lift both robots. Robot B drives on top of Robot A. Robot A lifts both so that both sets of bumpers are above the low goals. Robot B then extends the arm to bring the magnet close enough to the empty rung to touch it and "stick" to it via the magnetism. Robot C scales or has scaled the remaining side of the tower.



In the above scenario, Robot A is the only robot in contact with Rung 1. Robot B is the only robot in contact Rung 2. Robot C is the only robot in contact with Rung 3. But, the bumpers of all three robots are above the low goal and only two robots did the lifting.This is a concept worthy of the team that designed a ramp robot in 2010 so robots could drive on top of us, and we could lift ourselves and them at the same time for the bonus points of our robot supporting another hanging robot. You should totally come mentor the Leopards, sir.

[pfreivald]

This worries me that any robot that can't maintain a near-perfect center of gravity would be illegal if it tipped overmuch while scaling the tower....

Because if you only pay attention to the definition of the BUMPER ZONE a winch-bot is safe, and if you only pay attention to the 15" outside from a horizontal plane a winch-bot is safe, but if you must satisfy both then you're pretty much going to have to keep your bumpers level as if you were on solid ground if you want any hope of scaling the tower.

"Think it'll work?"
"It'd take a miracle."

[GaryVoshol]

I don't believe this rule update cleared up the questions about Ri3D 1.0's climb where their robot tilted entirely making their bumpers vertical and whether or not that violated the 15" Extension rule.

Although with the emphasis on measuring the robot as it would be flat on the ground, I'd assume that Ri3D 1.0's climb would indeed be illegal.

I'm fairly confident that this would not be legal. Although I'd be willing to be proven wrong.

The ROBOT's BUMPER ZONE moves as the ROBOT moves. If the ROBOT tips over, then the BUMPER ZONE tips too. See the picture in the blue box under G17. While this is demonstrating that a tipped ROBOT doesn't violate the height limit, it would also apply to the BUMPER ZONE. If that's to scale, the BUMPERS are 5" wide, and on the tipping ROBOT the top of the BUMPER is about 16-18" off the floor. That can't be a violation.

It follows that since your BUMPER ZONE is defined by your FRAME PERIMETER, then as your ROBOT tips the FRAME PERIMETER tips too.

When the ROBOT tips in an attempt to SCALE, all parts must be within 15" of [the projection of] the tipped FRAME PERIMETER. That sure looks to be farther than 15" on the video.

Nice try guys, but I think it's time for version 2.0, or at least 1.5.

(Aside: How were they going to put BUMPERS on the front end of that thing anyway? Sure, they could attach a frame section to do it, but that might interfere with the treads.)

EDIT:
Regarding the jacking device, this would change the location of the BUMPER ZONE, because the jack pushes the ROBOT and the attached BUMPERS upward. While the FRAME PERIMETER doesn't change size, the BUMPERS are jacked up so they are outside the BUMPER ZONE. Because the jacking device is still on the ground. Or if on the BATTER, then figure out where the BUMPER ZONE would be if the ROBOT was on flat ground.

EDIT 2: There's a blue box following R22 that states (more succinctly) what I've expounded above regarding the BUMPER ZONE of a tipped ROBOT.

[Kevin Sevcik]

When the ROBOT tips in an attempt to SCALE, all parts must be within 15" of [the projection of] the tipped FRAME PERIMETER. That sure looks to be farther than 15" on the video.I submitted a Q&A that I hope will clarify things. I think it depends on whether you have to project the frame perimeter down to the floor like you're talking about, or whether to approach things like the new R22 Blue Box and "virtually transpose the robot to a flat floor". The latter interpretation makes Ri3D likely legal, because it sure doesn't look like the arm sticks out too far when the lift is complete. Of course, the latter interpretation makes winch bots tricky, because if you tip backwards, your winch cable is suddenly 30" outside your frame perimeter. The projection method you're considering pretty much reverses the situation.

[riverdrake250]

New, but awesome. Here are the direct links:

Blue End: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016BlueEnd.vr.jpg
Center: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016Center.vr.jpg
Red End https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016RedEnd.vr.jpg
Spy Box: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/Kickoff2016SpyBox.vr.jpg

What's with the missing flap on the blue low bar?