Q&A:612 Rock Wall Dimension Change [Archive]

AllenGregoryIV

20-01-2016, 13:58

This will be coming out in Team update 4 Friday. HQ got the dimension of the Rock Wall wrong in both the team and field drawings and it's actually 5.5" wide instead of 4.5" (The height appears to have been correct).

Q&A612 (https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Question/612/team-drawings-show-defense-ramps-10-inches-but-real-field-is-almost-12-also-at-nh-kickoff-i-measured-the-width-of-stone-wall-5-5-but-team-and-real-field-drawings-show-4-5-my-photos-also-show-the-wid)
Q. Team drawings show defense ramps 10 inches but real field is almost 12. Also at NH kickoff I measured the width of stone wall 5.5 but team and real field drawings show 4.5. My photos also show the width wider than tall. Are corrections for dimensions needed?
2016-01-19 by FRC0175
A. Regarding the discrepancy you describe in the first part of your question, we think the answer to Q573 answers your question. The second part, however, does show a discrepancy, the correct dimension is 5.5 inches. Both the Field Drawings and Team Version Drawings will be updated to show the revision in Team Update 04. (Edited to correct team update number)

I'm hoping they choose to change the fields and not change the drawings since so many teams have already been making decisions based on the published specs. We even already made a sheet metal rock wall to the originally published specs.

notmattlythgoe

20-01-2016, 14:03

RoboChair

20-01-2016, 14:04

We too have had a bent steel plate for our rockwall made as per specs.

However, I think for most teams the extra inch of width will make driving over it easier, not harder.

Chris is me

20-01-2016, 14:09

Team Update 5: GDC reveals that they actually meant to send us 5" dodgeballs instead of 10" dodgeballs. Teams should design accordingly!

Team Update 6: Due to a typo the Frame Perimeter was actually meant to be 100", not 120". Whoops!

Come on GDC. Hundreds of teams have committed to drivetrains at this point! This is a colossal oversight and a huge change 20% of the way through build season.

aldaeron

20-01-2016, 14:13

However, I think for most teams the extra inch of width will make driving over it easier, not harder.

Unless you plan to straddle it ...

notmattlythgoe

20-01-2016, 14:24

FIRST should take the bath and update the fields on this one, not the other way around.

Basel A

20-01-2016, 14:26

FIRST should take the bath and update the fields on this one, not the other way around.

I agree 100%. This is not OK.

AdamHeard

20-01-2016, 14:33

It's a plate with 4 bends, FIRST should stick to the 4.5"

BoilerMentor

20-01-2016, 14:38

notmattlythgoe

20-01-2016, 14:40

While, personally the 1" change in width doesn't much matter to me or my team for that matter, I almost hope that first doesn't change the fields. It's a good lesson for anyone going into engineering and technology fields. Customers do change their mind in the middle of aggressively scheduled projects, often more wildly than the change being discussed. Let's use some innovation and get over it, literally.

Those changes don't often hit the budgets of small town teams that have spent money on their designs and can't afford to change them. The lesson this would teach is not worth it.

Anupam Goli

20-01-2016, 14:41

While, personally the 1" change in width doesn't much matter to me or my team for that matter, I almost hope that first doesn't change the fields. It's a good lesson for anyone going into engineering and technology fields. Customers do change their mind in the middle of aggressively scheduled projects, often more wildly than the change being discussed. Let's use some innovation and get over it, literally.

By that logic, we should get an extra week of build season since the initial specifications desired were wrong.

notmattlythgoe

20-01-2016, 14:42

By that logic, we should get an extra week of build season since the initial specifications desired were wrong.

And FIRST should refund some of the registration fees to make up for the added cost. The lesson doesn't translate.

marshall

20-01-2016, 14:44

And FIRST should refund some of the registration fees to make up for the added cost. The lesson doesn't translate.

Yeah! I want my money back!

PayneTrain

20-01-2016, 14:47

Yeah! I want my money back!

I've been holding on to these pitchforks for almost 2 years; let's do this!

notmattlythgoe

20-01-2016, 14:48

I've been holding on to these pitchforks for almost 2 years; let's do this!

http://media0.giphy.com/media/k1WNsvwuYUGzu/giphy.gif

PayneTrain

20-01-2016, 14:52

http://media0.giphy.com/media/k1WNsvwuYUGzu/giphy.gif

I said pitchforks; you just killed a guy with a trident!

You should probably lay low for a while.

marshall

20-01-2016, 14:56

And thus began the Stronghold riot of 2016...

BoilerMentor

20-01-2016, 14:58

I mean, it isn't the surprise ball inflation issues of 2014 or the whole 2015 game... It could be worse.

Joseph Smith

20-01-2016, 15:03

I've known teams to reconfigure their entire robot during the first day of a competition. I think that, two weeks into build season, teams will survive this surprise.

aldaeron

20-01-2016, 15:05

I think we should follow the advice of Q&A 535

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Question/535/questionlink

We're happy to consider suggestions, but please send them to frcteams@firstinspires.org.

With enough emails hopefully they will listen. Just like emailing your elected representative. Someone could even type a form letter in this thread to cut and paste to FIRST.

-matto-

P.S. Poor Frank is going to get mobbed on GameSense with this question.

Sunshine

20-01-2016, 15:07

Add a 1/2" of wood on back side and get over it. Or add 1/2" of extruded aluminum to top face and get over it........ Literally :p

Chris is me

20-01-2016, 15:12

Add a 1/2" of wood on back side and get over it. Or add 1/2" of extruded aluminum to top face and get over it........ Literally :p

Rebuilding the team version of the obstacle is really the least difficult part of dealing with this change. Some of us have already designed our drivetrains and are locked into solutions that will at best be sketchy and at worst just not work with the new dimensions.

Karthik

20-01-2016, 15:12

Come on GDC. Hundreds of teams have committed to drivetrains at this point! This is a colossal oversight and a huge change 20% of the way through build season.

It's probably more than 20% for most teams since this isn't being conveyed in a Team Update until Friday, which is Day 14 of the build season.

This game is by far the most difficult for teams in terms of field construction. It's unfortunate that teams now have to remake this section of the field, especially for teams who went with metal version. Not to mention the impact on teams who have prototyped and designed drivetrains based on the original incorrect spec. The obviously isn't a deal breaker for anyone as teams can find ways to work around this, however it's still frustrating and disappointing. Over the past few years in FRC, the GDC has basically always made team/customer friendly decisions when it comes to changes like this; hopefully they'll reconsider this one to keep with that trend.

aldaeron

20-01-2016, 15:17

Over the past few years in FRC, the GDC has basically always made team/customer friendly decisions when it comes to changes like this; hopefully they'll reconsider this one to keep with that trend.

The other pertinent question is which is easier to fix and which does FIRST have more control over? 20 ish fields (best guess, there are probably less), each containing 2-3 rock wall defenses (assuming they are all built already). Or 3000 teams?

With the Team Update unreleased, but coming, do we start swapping our rock walls now? Or Friday? What if they reverse it?

Sigh.

I feel like they released that Q&A too quickly.

Sunshine

20-01-2016, 15:23

Originally Posted by Sunshine View Post
Add a 1/2" of wood on back side and get over it. Or add 1/2" of extruded aluminum to top face and get over it........ Literally

Rebuilding the team version of the obstacle is really the least difficult part of dealing with this change. Some of us have already designed our drivetrains and are locked into solutions that will at best be sketchy and at worst just not work with the new dimensions.

Wow, that pun went over well!
Chris, I hope that your team gets over it, and over it, and over it, and over it.........

Ryan Dognaux

20-01-2016, 15:56

FIRST dun goofed. They should just keep it as it was written. This is a game of inches and they just added one.

JohnFogarty

20-01-2016, 16:10

Are we joking here? Field tolerances an different regionals have always been +/- 1 in. Apparently this year the field drawings are the same.

Kevin Sevcik

20-01-2016, 16:23

Are we joking here? Field tolerances an different regionals have always been +/- 1 in. Apparently this year the field drawings are the same.One would hope certain field tolerances could be held slightly tighter than that, though. I mean if the rock wall was 5.5x5.5 and the moat walls were an extra inch taller, they'd be enormously more difficult. Or if the rough terrain gaps were 2.5" instead of 1.5".

Mostly I don't think the +/- 1" should apply to the defenses because they're such an integral part of the game. It's like the boulders were suddenly 9"-11" diameter. It has the potential to greatly affect robot performance.

Also, the situation is pretty insane. Literally every piece of information given to teams says 4.5" up to and including the CAD drawings. It seems like it's obviously a manufacturing error, and if I shopped out parts and had them come back 25% out of spec, they'd be sent back as rejected and I'd probably be looking for a new supplier.

Bryan Herbst

20-01-2016, 17:11

The field drawings contain the tolerances, which vary based on the field element. Check out the field assembly document (https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/2016FieldAssembly.pdf).

The overall length of the field is +/- 3", because that's a dimension that's incredibly difficult to get perfect, and impossible to keep consistent over the course of a 3 day competition.

Measurements from a wall to a piece of tape (and tape to tape) are +/- 0.5", and those are easier to keep within spec.

Nuttyman54

20-01-2016, 18:12

UPDATE: FRC Q&A Has revised the response to Q612:

We've pulled back this response because we need to re-evaluate. We commit to a response by Friday, 01/22/2016. Please accept our apologies.

Hopefully this means they are reconsidering what the "true" field dimensions will be. I'm sure we'll get some more insight on GameSense tonight with Frank.

Shaif

21-01-2016, 15:46

I said pitchforks; you just killed a guy with a trident!

You should probably lay low for a while.

Fizz wanabe

kuraikou

21-01-2016, 16:07

FIRST should take the bath and update the fields on this one, not the other way around.

I don't think they can change the fields now, the fields have probably already been fabricated.

EricLeifermann

21-01-2016, 16:09

I don't think they can change the fields now, the fields have probably already been fabricated.

Doesn't mean they can't change. The rock wall isn't integral into the structure or shape of the field. It's an easy fix and FIRST should be the ones to take the expense and change.

Chris is me

21-01-2016, 16:13

I don't think they can change the fields now, the fields have probably already been fabricated.

If FIRST can't find someone to cut and bend 20ish pieces of sheet steel in a month, they really need some new suppliers.

Richard Wallace

21-01-2016, 16:32

If FIRST can't find someone to cut and bend 20ish pieces of sheet steel in a month, they really need some new suppliers.
I believe the material is 5 gage aluminum sheet. But your point is still valid.

AdamHeard

21-01-2016, 16:47

I believe the material is 5 gage aluminum sheet. But your point is still valid.

I'm not sure, they show it welded to steel sheet in the drawings, no?

Another point of confusion.

Cory

21-01-2016, 16:48

I believe the material is 5 gage aluminum sheet. But your point is still valid.

No, it's steel. They screwed up that part of the drawing too. The assembly drawing makes it clear it's a weldment and refers to it as "steel bump".

Kevin Sevcik

21-01-2016, 17:55

No, it's steel. They screwed up that part of the drawing too. The assembly drawing makes it clear it's a weldment and refers to it as "steel bump".Next year's game will be building robots to read field drawings and go out and verify the actual field against them. Then the field not matching the drawings will be entirely by design.

PayneTrain

21-01-2016, 17:59

I'm not sure, they show it welded to steel sheet in the drawings, no?

Another point of confusion.

An error in the field drawings? Say it ain't so!

MrRiedemanJACC

21-01-2016, 21:35

I'm not sure, they show it welded to steel sheet in the drawings, no?

Another point of confusion.

I'm surprised with this update that the material wasn't addressed also. Does anyone know if that is a question already submitted?

Cory

21-01-2016, 21:39

I'm surprised with this update that the material wasn't addressed also. Does anyone know if that is a question already submitted?

I think it's pretty obviously steel. The mention of aluminum makes absolutely no sense and steel is explicitly called out in 2 different locations in the assembly drawing.

FrankJ

21-01-2016, 21:55

I have been told the field elements where originally aluminium and got changed to steel when they found out the cost.

MrBasse

21-01-2016, 22:38

I think it's pretty obviously steel. The mention of aluminum makes absolutely no sense and steel is explicitly called out in 2 different locations in the assembly drawing.

It is a tad ironic to back up a statement by citing a drawing in a thread about how the drawings are wrong.

Didn't they say they were steel in the field tour videos?

JB987

21-01-2016, 23:00

Has anybody altered their wall yet and made an effort to determine what effect exactly is incurred by the change?

FrankJ

21-01-2016, 23:27

Rock Wall will be 5.25 wide because of manufacturing limitations per Frank's blog. Height per drawing. 4.5?

RoboChair

22-01-2016, 02:03

Rock Wall will be 5.25 wide because of manufacturing limitations per Frank's blog. Height per drawing. 4.5?

Please refer to Page 148 of the 2016FieldComponents.pdf
(https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/2016FieldComponents.pdf)
The Rock Wall is 4.625" tall overall relative to the platform, it is 4.50" if you are not counting the thickness of the material that makes up the base flanges.

So it will be 4.625" Tall and 5.25" Wide at Competition.

FrankJ

22-01-2016, 08:57

Please refer to Page 148 of the 2016FieldComponents.pdf
(https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/2016FieldComponents.pdf)
The Rock Wall is 4.625" tall overall relative to the platform, it is 4.50" if you are not counting the thickness of the material that makes up the base flanges.

So it will be 4.625" Tall and 5.25" Wide at Competition.

I was going off the game manual dimensions which shows 4.5. I agree the detail drawing would make it 4.63" Assuming the part was made to the drawing which apparently it wasn't. The same drawing shows the material to be 5 gauge Aluminum which is .182 thick which will make it 4.68. I guess we will same what it really is on game day. Sort of reminds my of the British & Italian sports cars of the 60s which where made out of whatever was in the parts bin that day. :]

Chris is me

22-01-2016, 09:34

I'm trying to temper my frustrations by knowing that this probably doesn't ruin my team's robot or anything like that, and that FIRST didn't seem to have any good options here. They're doing what they can do now to fix it. But it's just such an amateurish mistake to make.

Does FIRST just not inspect their parts? Surely when someone got the part and measured it, they were comparing the measurement to a number written on some kind of drawing somewhere. They just don't verify dimensions against prints? Or they released the wrong print? What gives?

And the geometry of a 4.5" wide hat section isn't exactly rocket science for a supplier to make either. Dozens of teams have made their own without incident.

I guess I'm just venting. There's nothing else that can be done.

No, it's steel. They screwed up that part of the drawing too. The assembly drawing makes it clear it's a weldment and refers to it as "steel bump".

While you're probably right, it was also "obviously" 4.5 inches wide too...

Kevin Sevcik

22-01-2016, 10:00

And the geometry of a 4.5" wide hat section isn't exactly rocket science for a supplier to make either. Dozens of teams have made their own without incident.I'll agree on that. It's not like it's different from the 4" hat sections for 2012. I could probably walk out to our shop and have the fab guys knock them out in a few hours. Heck, there's enough fabricating resources in all of FRC that HQ could probably put out a request and get the parts donated to them by a team or teams in less time than going through their current supplier.

adam the great

22-01-2016, 10:07

Hey mistakes happen, especially in the manufacturing and design industry (quite often in fact). But I'm glad to see they released their rationale and the behind the scenes decisions that led to their choice. Luckily tho this change I can't really see hurting any team at all, cause if anything its much easier to not get stuck on the rock wall now.

RoboChair

22-01-2016, 12:47

I was going off the game manual dimensions which shows 4.5. I agree the detail drawing would make it 4.63" Assuming the part was made to the drawing which apparently it wasn't. The same drawing shows the material to be 5 gauge Aluminum which is .182 thick which will make it 4.68. I guess we will same what it really is on game day. Sort of reminds my of the British & Italian sports cars of the 60s which where made out of whatever was in the parts bin that day. :]

Please look at the updated version of the 2016FieldComponents.pdf, they have the drawing with the dimensions as you will see at competition.

Cory

22-01-2016, 16:28

While you're probably right, it was also "obviously" 4.5 inches wide too...

In the context of the entire field it's pretty safe to assume the drawing is right in this regard. You can't weld aluminum to steel and every baseplate for every defense is steel.

Lil' Lavery

22-01-2016, 16:31

In the context of the entire field it's pretty safe to assume the drawing is right in this regard. You can't weld aluminum to steel and every baseplate for every defense is steel.

Sure you can. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924013606005048) ;) ;)

EricH

22-01-2016, 20:32

Sure you can. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924013606005048) ;) ;)
You would bring that process up... That's my day job. (OK, I don't deal with welding aluminum to steel, period. But we do deal with lots of aluminum.)

That being said, I do believe I've seen some PLASTIC welded to steel by the same process.

runneals

23-01-2016, 00:01

EricH

23-01-2016, 00:03

"We've pulled back this response because we need to re-evaluate. We commit to a response by Friday, 01/22/2016. Please accept our apologies." Hmm... No response...
I think they just forgot to update the Q&A, as they've responded via blog post and via Team Update changing drawings.

evanperryg

23-01-2016, 00:14

An actual quote from one of our parent mentors working on field build: "the wood field dimensions are stupid, half of them are completely wrong." I find it astounding that FIRST could have missed so many blatant mistakes in the field dimensions this year. Already, people are finding out that the dodgeballs vary significantly in mass (the reason for this has yet to be determined) and they aren't actually 10 inches in diameter. The rough terrain in the team-built field dimensions is completely different from the actual rough terrain. They literally modified a major dimension a third of the way into the season. It seems like the GDC wasn't quite prepared for this game to actually be released. (and, if we're pointing fingers, I would say the same thing about last years game... seriously, how did they not think of the noodle agreement?)

That being said, I'd be very surprised if an extra half inch on the rock wall would make or break your drivetrain. Actually, if it somehow does, I'd want to reassess how the drivetrain is designed in the first place.

Michael Hill

23-01-2016, 00:49

Sure you can. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924013606005048) ;) ;)

Explosion welding is my preferred method of welding aluminum to steel.

https://youtu.be/s7hx5bSWqRM?t=20

RoboChair

26-01-2016, 01:18

Explosion welding is my preferred method of welding aluminum to steel.

https://youtu.be/s7hx5bSWqRM?t=20

That is some strong click bait you have deployed there sir!

I was not disappointed.

Michael Hill

26-01-2016, 06:04

That is some strong click bait you have deployed there sir!

I was not disappointed.

Here are the TOP 10 ways to weld aluminum to steel. Number 8 will blow your mind!

New Lightning

26-01-2016, 18:37

lets be real here people, how does changing something 1" really effect how your drive train will function. I'm mean really. Any drive train that was meant to go over a variety of obstacles should handle a 1" difference easily. People are making this out to be way more of a big deal than it needs to be.

AustinH

26-01-2016, 18:46

Here are the TOP 10 ways to weld aluminum to steel. Number 8 will blow your mind!

For those interested in seeing production-size explosion bonding of dissimilar metals, enjoy the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfxsnBPnQ

Extremely useful process, albeit a teeeensy bit expensive.

(Obligatory Do Not Try This at Home)