![]() |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
Contiguous defined: 1. bordering, adjoining, abutting. 2. adjacent. The two parts are adjoined by a rubber band. Thank you for proving my point. :-) |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
I'm very curious as to the ruling on components that are touching, but not rigidly connected. For example, in the wheel drawing that Art provided, would it become legal if a brush was added to the front of the support, keeping the wheel's tread in constant contact with the support?
If it does, then I think that most illegal appendage concepts could be legalized through similar means. If it doesn't, things become hairy in a hurry. For example, is a threaded fastener legal? At some point, the outsides of each thread will be beyond the frame perimeter, while the core of the bolt that keeps it "contiguous" is within the perimeter. Even if you ignore the threads, the bolt is not strictly "connected" to the appendage around it. |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
EX: "the leads attached to a battery are non COT parts" from a few years past... |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
There have been 2 questions asked upon this topic.
FRC148: Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21 Q. Recent G21 rulings may make any wheel,gear,roller,etc on an appendage illegal. There will ALWAYS be a moment between when the wheel edge and the center shaft cross the frame perimeter that a discontiguous piece of wheel will be outside the FP. Is this intended? Are all wheels on appendages illegal? FRC1619: Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21 Q. In light of the Q&A responses restricting an appendage design well beyond the actual wording in the manual, will the manual be updated? Otherwise, teams designing to the current manual’s appendage definition could seemingly have more design freedom versus teams that have followed the Q&A responses. I hope that this either opens up the interpretation, or completely answers any and all questions once and for all (until the next update). |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
I know this has been hashed to death but intent of the rule is clear. You can only have one "thing" outside your frame perimeter at a time. If something is extended out the front, say to manipulate the ramp, nothing can be extended out of the back or sides at the same time. And you can only extend that "thing" up to 14".
I honestly think that when writing the rules, the GDC didn't want to use the word "arm" to define the "thing" so they settled on "appendage". Any team that has designed within these constraints should be fine. Should be. |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
The Q&A responses are what are being debated. The GDC has now said that an all parts of an appendage need to be contiguous at all times. |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
I don't understand why the GDC can't make this simple and say 'If it moves as one assembly and is connected at some point to make it one assembly, then it is considered a single appendage.' Would make early events much less hellish than they will be if the rule is not clarified. |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
I don't understand myself why it can't be this simple. What, has 469 found a way to break the game again if that was the ruling? -Nick |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
As a person who has been asked to volunteer as a robot inspector (possibly LRI), this ambiguity is the sort of thing that would lead me to decline. I would expect the GDC to clarify things for inspectors and referees in order to get consistent policy. If they can do this for inspectors & refs, I would like to see them do it for teams, as well. If they won't do it for inspectors & refs, then I would be inclined to decline. I don't want to be put the position of enforcing my own personal interpretation of something this significant.
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
I propose that all of who are paying attention send out messages to the coaches in our regions directing people to the Q&A and this thread or at least a summary of it. I've done that in the Pacific NW but I don't know what's going on in other regions. Hopefully FIRST will include this in an update.
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Does anyone have any ideas on what may have happened to the following question that has disappeared from the Q&A log:
FRC1619: Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21 Q. In light of the Q&A responses restricting an appendage design well beyond the actual wording in the manual, will the manual be updated? Otherwise, teams designing to the current manual’s appendage definition could seemingly have more design freedom versus teams that have followed the Q&A responses. This question was still there (and unanswered) earlier today but now is gone. I don't recall a poster having the ability to Edit or Remove a question once posted. Maybe someone from Team 1619 might have an explanation??? |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Our design uses a "clam-shell" style appendage that will come together to drop a ball for the short-range shooter.
It is my understanding that as long as the frame perimeter is only crossed once, the appendage can fork off into multiple appendages (say 7" out for example). Would a clam-shell design that is hinged WITHIN the frame perimeter be considered two appendages, even though it is mechanically contiguous? |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
An update:
[G21]Robots may extend one appendage up to 14 in. beyond a single edge of their frame perimeter at any time. Violation: Foul for exceeding size allotments; Technical-Foul for continuous or repeated violations. These appendages are intended for use in manipulating Basketballs and/or Bridges. A Robot may have multiple extension devices onboard, but only one may be deployed at a given time. All portions of an appendage that are outside the Frame Perimeter must be contiguous with each other. Very brief violations of the contiguity requirement as a single appendage is being extended or retracted will not be penalized. |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: I guess this works too: Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
From today's update!
[G21] Robots may extend one appendage up to 14 in. beyond a single edge of their frame perimeter at any time. Violation: Foul for exceeding size allotments; Technical-Foul for continuous or repeated violations. These appendages are intended for use in manipulating Basketballs and/or Bridges. A Robot may have multiple extension devices onboard, but only one may be deployed at a given time. All portions of an appendage that are outside the Frame Perimeter must be contiguous with each other. Very brief violations of the contiguity requirement as a single appendage is being extended or retracted will not be penalized. Yeah! |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
I can now rest better...Common sense has prevailed...
Hurrah!! |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Amen to that!!!
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
By the way....PLEASE Don't start arguing about what "Very Brief" means...
:0) |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Not to squash the feelings of jubilation after this latest update, but it does bring into question another issue. In a couple of recent Q&A answers:
Quote:
Quote:
If I had an appendage whose primary function is other than for manipulating the Basketballs or Bridges, I would ask for clarification from the GDC as soon possible. |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
I love common sense.
-Nick |
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Is is legal to have an appendage with moving parts on it? Aka: pneumatics, motors etc?
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
There's nothing in the rules that says it can't have moving parts.
|
Thank you GDC!!!!
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:58. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi