Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100696)

wilsonmw04 06-02-2012 23:05

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nitneylion452 (Post 1121418)
Stringing a rubber band around the prongs of the H wouldn't really make them contiguous. When I think contiguous, I think rigid attachments.

not meaning to be contrary, but where is that stated in the rule book?

Contiguous defined:

1. bordering, adjoining, abutting. 2. adjacent.

The two parts are adjoined by a rubber band. Thank you for proving my point. :-)

nitneylion452 06-02-2012 23:15

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1121421)
not meaning to be contrary, but where is that stated in the rule book?

Contiguous defined:

1. bordering, adjoining, abutting. 2. adjacent.

The two parts are adjoined by a rubber band. Thank you for proving my point. :-)

Contiguous defined from Merriam Webster:

Quote:

being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point

touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence
You gave some wonderful synonyms, but not a very good definition.

wilsonmw04 06-02-2012 23:25

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nitneylion452 (Post 1121424)
Contiguous defined from Merriam Webster:



You gave some wonderful synonyms, but not a very good definition.

Again, I would say I am within the letter of the law. All parts of my two "halves" are touching (through another member), therefore, contiguous.

Joe G. 06-02-2012 23:26

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.

nitneylion452 06-02-2012 23:37

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1121433)
Again, I would say I am within the letter of the law. All parts of my two "halves" are touching (through another member), therefore, contiguous.

Only official way to know would be to ask the GDC directly through the Q&A. We can argue semantics till the cows come home, but if you want to know for sure, ask through the Q&A.

wilsonmw04 06-02-2012 23:41

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nitneylion452 (Post 1121443)
Only official way to know would be to ask the GDC directly through the Q&A. We can argue semantics till the cows come home, but if you want to know for sure, ask through the Q&A.

Again, thanks for making my point. Folks have rammed the GDC into a corner to the point we are arguing semantics.

EX: "the leads attached to a battery are non COT parts" from a few years past...

nitneylion452 06-02-2012 23:48

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1121448)
Again, thanks for making my point. Folks have rammed the GDC into a corner to the point we are arguing semantics.

EX: "the leads attached to a battery are non COT parts" from a few years past...

I completely agree, but my point was that if you want to know for sure if looping a rubber band around the prongs of an H shaped appendage would make those prongs contiguous. If you have access to Q&A, I would like it if you asked. I'm rather curious of their answer now. :cool:

wilsonmw04 06-02-2012 23:50

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nitneylion452 (Post 1121456)
I completely agree, but my point was that if you want to know for sure if looping a rubber band around the prongs of an H shaped appendage would make those prongs contiguous. If you have access to Q&A, I would like it if you asked. I'm rather curious of their answer now. :cool:

sadly, they will not comment on specific designs.

nitneylion452 06-02-2012 23:51

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1121457)
sadly, they will not comment on specific designs.

Very true.

EricH 07-02-2012 00:08

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).

Justin Montois 07-02-2012 03:02

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.

nitneylion452 07-02-2012 03:52

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Montois (Post 1121532)
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.

The intent of the original rule is very obvious. A robot can only deploy one appendage at a time over one edge of the frame perimeter.

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.

thefro526 07-02-2012 10:23

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Montois (Post 1121532)
Any team that has designed within these constraints should be fine. Should be.

I have to disagree with you here. I know numerous teams that designed within the constraints who have designs that have now been ruled as illegal by some of the Q&A responses.

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.

Nick Lawrence 07-02-2012 10:29

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thefro526 (Post 1121625)
I have to disagree with you here. I know numerous teams that designed within the constraints who have designs that have now been ruled as illegal by some of the Q&A responses.

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.

This is one of those few posts where Chief Delphi needs a like button.

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

Tuba4 07-02-2012 10:48

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thefro526 (Post 1121625)
I have to disagree with you here. I know numerous teams that designed within the constraints who have designs that have now been ruled as illegal by some of the Q&A responses.

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.

I whole heartedly agree with you!! Many initial designs for ball catchers were using surgical tubing "whips" to grab the balls. Unless these designs were totally within the frame perimeter - not even the ends of the tubing can be beyond the perimeter now - they are now illegal because the contiguous portion of the mechanism would not be beyond the perimeter.

Justin Montois 07-02-2012 11:16

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thefro526 (Post 1121625)
I have to disagree with you here. I know numerous teams that designed within the constraints who have designs that have now been ruled as illegal by some of the Q&A responses.

Fair enough but if you're a team that doesn't follow the Q & A's and you got to competition I think you could make a pretty convincing case to the LRI based on the manual definition.

Wayne TenBrink 07-02-2012 12:35

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.

Dale 07-02-2012 12:58

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.

mott 07-02-2012 13:19

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???

jason701802 07-02-2012 14:51

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1119578)
Thanks. We're legal (it's more a "D" than anything else), but for anyone who is looking only to the robot rules or inspection checklist, don't forget G21. As a ref, this is all very painful. At least inspectors get to slowly look at one robot however they'd like. I shudder at what could be required of refs in terms of G21. Will the inspectors take care of it all, or do we need eagle eyes to tell which edge/component crossed the perimeter first? What if I see a partially obscured Y/V/U and mistake it for two "1"s?

I would expect this to be handled similarly to 2010, where it was the responsibility of the inspectors to ensure that a ball could not get more than 3in into the frame, so that the refs only have to look for obvious violations of the rule, like deploying two completely different appendages at the same time.

jvriezen 07-02-2012 15:37

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jason701802 (Post 1121724)
I would expect this to be handled similarly to 2010, where it was the responsibility of the inspectors to ensure that a ball could not get more than 3in into the frame, so that the refs only have to look for obvious violations of the rule, like deploying two completely different appendages at the same time.

Inspectors (Lead inspectors, at least) should also consider when to let the Head Ref know that there is something to look out for-- "Team XXX has an appendage that is mechanically able to swing sideways into the corner which would be illegal, but they claim the SW (or the driver) will prevent it from happening. Keep an eye out for it." Or something like that...

RDX1466 07-02-2012 16:16

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?

SteveGPage 07-02-2012 16:53

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RDX1466 (Post 1121784)
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?

You could always ask the GDC, but would think they would indicate that they are not able to advise on any design. Current answers, regarding this topic, from the GDC on the Q&A forum would indicate that because the hinge is within the frame perimeter, this design would be illegal.

SteveGPage 07-02-2012 16:59

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.

jason701802 07-02-2012 17:00

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jvriezen (Post 1121757)
Inspectors (Lead inspectors, at least) should also consider when to let the Head Ref know that there is something to look out for-- "Team XXX has an appendage that is mechanically able to swing sideways into the corner which would be illegal, but they claim the SW (or the driver) will prevent it from happening. Keep an eye out for it." Or something like that...

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe if there was a system (possibly integrated into the FMS, I don't know enough about the systems they use) were inspectors in enter quick notes about teams that the refs would see when the teams came on the field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1116995)
Perhaps what they need to do is define it as "after deployment, or when it intentionally comes in contact with a Court element (whichever comes first)".

This seems like the simplest and best solution. Possibly modifying it to be "The contiguous part of an appendage must be outside the frame perimeter before the appendage may interact with any game/field element(s)"


EDIT: I guess this works too:
Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveGPage (Post 1121819)
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.

This would allow rollers with whips as long the whips start within the frame perimeter and the solid part of the roller is pushed to the frame perimeter before it is used.

jvriezen 07-02-2012 17:01

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!

Bob Steele 07-02-2012 17:10

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
I can now rest better...Common sense has prevailed...
Hurrah!!

mott 07-02-2012 17:12

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Amen to that!!!

Mr V 07-02-2012 17:14

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Steele (Post 1121834)
I can now rest better...Common sense has prevailed...
Hurrah!!

X2!!!!

Bob Steele 07-02-2012 17:25

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
By the way....PLEASE Don't start arguing about what "Very Brief" means...

:0)

SteveGPage 07-02-2012 17:43

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:

Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. Can appendages (one at a time) be used for purposes other than manipulating Basketballs and/or Bridges?
FRC3005 2012-01-11
A. Yes, as long as no other rules are violated.
Quote:

Game - The Game » Robot-Robot Interaction
Q. Can a robot grab onto another robot, of the same team in a nondestructive manner, in order to help balance on the bridge?
FRC0122 2012-01-21
A. Yes, provided Game rules are not broken, specifically [G26] and [G27].
With this new update, "These appendages are intended for use in manipulating Basketballs and/or Bridges" - those answers can be called into question. Can you design the appendage for a use different than manipulating the Basketballs or Bridges, such as to grab onto your alliance partner while attempting to balance the bridge?

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.

artdutra04 07-02-2012 18:01

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveGPage (Post 1121863)
With this new update, "These appendages are intended for use in manipulating Basketballs and/or Bridges" - those answers can be called into question. Can you design the appendage for a use different than manipulating the Basketballs or Bridges, such as to grab onto your alliance partner while attempting to balance the bridge?

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.

That question was already asked several weeks ago:

Quote:

Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. Can appendages (one at a time) be used for purposes other than manipulating Basketballs and/or Bridges? FRC3005 2012-01-11
A. Yes, as long as no other rules are violated.

SteveGPage 07-02-2012 18:07

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by artdutra04 (Post 1121871)
That question was already asked several weeks ago:

As we both quoted, the answer indicates that it CAN be used for other purposes, but my concern is if it is designed ONLY for another purpose, then I might want to look for clarification.

Tuba4 07-02-2012 18:43

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveGPage (Post 1121819)
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.

This is good news. It should put the question to rest for most kinds of appendages. I am not certain how it will impact ball harvesters using a rotating drum with surgical tubing whips, which seem to be a common choice. I think they may still not be legal. Clearly if the drum does not extend beyond the frame perimeter and only the "whips" do, that would not be legal. And if your drum was able to move and extend, then it would need to retract in order to extend a bridge appendage.

Nick Lawrence 07-02-2012 19:02

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
I love common sense.

-Nick

swwrobotics 08-02-2012 07:30

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
Is is legal to have an appendage with moving parts on it? Aka: pneumatics, motors etc?

Dale 08-02-2012 09:16

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 
There's nothing in the rules that says it can't have moving parts.

lemiant 08-02-2012 11:39

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