Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Robot Showcase (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58)
-   -   179 Swamp Teasers (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101676)

militaryrobot 01-02-2012 20:16

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
You have blown my mind completley:ahh:

RufflesRidge 01-02-2012 20:20

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1118060)
Exactly. Thats not the part in question. The question is if they will be touching that as well when they are touching the top of the bridge; and if they are, then they are no longer just "touching" the bridge, they are "grasping" it and therefore would be illegal.

I disagree that touching (and pushing down on) the top surface of two different parts of the bridge is grasping. If you put one hand on each of two shelves of bookcase and push down, are you grasping that bookcase?

Quote:

grasp
1. To take hold of or seize firmly with or as if with the hand.
2. To clasp firmly with or as if with the hand.

dellagd 01-02-2012 20:37

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Montois (Post 1117578)
Per FIRST Q & A, Emphasis mine...

Q. Per this rule, would a device that utilizes a passive "appendage" deployed over the center line barrier (bump) to prevent your machine from being moved or twisted when hit (by applying forces to opposing sides of the barrier be considered a violation of this rule? Please elaborate on rule intent.

A. The intent of Rule [G10] is stated in its opening sentence, "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure." While, we cannot comment on the legality of a specific design, holding on to a field element is considered grappling and a violation of Rule [G10].

Q. Is it permissable for a robot on the bridge to extend a device that can also react off the bottom surface of the bridge provided that device does not grasp the bridge firmly?

A. Rule [G10] does not put a qualifier on how a Robot may legally grasp the Bridge. It simply says it cannot do it.

I feel like they might be in trouble...

Here is the Merrian-Webster Definition of holding:

4
a : to have or maintain in the grasp <hold my hand> <this is how you hold the racket>; also : aim, point <held a gun on them>

b : to support in a particular position or keep from falling or moving <hold me up so I can see> <hold the ladder steady> <a clamp holds the whole thing together> <hold your head up>

c : to bear the pressure of : support <can the roof hold all of that weight>


Ok. I really do like the idea, but it does seem like by the definition they are holding on the field element, and therefore violating that Q&A response.


What do you guys think on this ruleing?

JohnSchneider 01-02-2012 20:41

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dellagd (Post 1118132)
What do you guys think on this ruleing?

Depends on if they're on my alliance or not ;)

BrendanB 01-02-2012 20:41

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
The biggest issue is not what the dictionary says, but what the GDC believes grasping/grappling/reacting is.

MagiChau 01-02-2012 20:42

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dellagd (Post 1118132)
Here is the Merrian-Webster Definition of holding:

4
a : to have or maintain in the grasp <hold my hand> <this is how you hold the racket>; also : aim, point <held a gun on them>

b : to support in a particular position or keep from falling or moving <hold me up so I can see> <hold the ladder steady> <a clamp holds the whole thing together> <hold your head up>

c : to bear the pressure of : support <can the roof hold all of that weight>


Ok. I really do like the idea, but it does seem like by the definition they are holding on the field element, and therefore violating that Q&A response.


What do you guys think on this ruleing?

The usage of that definition like that would then contradict the bridge supporting any robot. The bridge keeps the robots from touching the ground.

Nemo 01-02-2012 20:48

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
This design is amazing. I can only imagine all of the details that need to be attended to for this to work as a ramp, as a robot that balances on the end, and as a gathering + shooting robot. So many constraints to satisfy on one robot! It makes me happy to see a really cool design like this.

dellagd 01-02-2012 20:54

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MagiChau (Post 1118138)
The usage of that definition like that would then contradict the bridge supporting any robot. The bridge keeps the robots from touching the ground.

Eh. I agree. But then again it does say in a particular position. Im guessing that position isnt standing on it, so... Anyway, I hope it all works out for them!

Tetraman 01-02-2012 21:13

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
I can't believe how many people are surprised at a robot like this - I expected it.

Its just like 148's Tumbleweed in 2008 where its going to show its true colors in the elimination matches and be the pick of a lifetime for any alliance who can hold their own with their first two robots. Not only that, but a robot that can pretty much guarantee that an opposing alliance robot can get on the ramp with them will probably earn them the top seed anyway.

Great design. I just hope that this will be the new start of a wave of simple robot designs for all teams in the years to come.

BJT 01-02-2012 21:28

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
if you couldn't see this thing and someone explained that only a 6"x20something" piece of it was in contact with only the top of the bridge, would you think it was legal?

ratdude747 01-02-2012 21:47

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dellagd (Post 1118025)
Oh, and this is wayyy of topic but did anyone else know that there was a dead horse emoticon on chief delphi? :deadhorse:

It is a bit graphic

How'd that get there :P

I suggested it. It was posted orignally into the 2012 hint #1 thread of doom that had turned into a deadhorse.

It was a direct port from badcaps.net forums where I am a super-mod... the forum needed a dead horse smiley.

I wouldn't consider it overly graphic... yeah, there is a whip and there is some red flecks but honestly?

sometimestommy 01-02-2012 21:56

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Wow. :ahh: The design is so simple yet elegant! and the purpose makes a lot of sense.

I can't wait to see this thing in action!

DavisC 01-02-2012 22:02

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Great job! My team is working on a different/similar design because we were doing a holding mechanism that was similar but powered by motors and had no ramp so we have a higher notch shooter.

I also did some pixel calculations using paint and this is my find (roughly):
wheels = 104 pixels sooo,
1 inch = 17.33 pixels
14 inches= 242.67 pixels
Past the frame perimeter:
extends = 237 pixels sooo,
final extends = ~~13.67 inches, seems good to me.

also in the picture with the ramp set up, was that 22 degrees. I calculated about 27 degrees (probably just a calculation error, unless the picture was before a mod that allowed it to be only 22 degrees).

Akash Rastogi 01-02-2012 22:13

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetraman (Post 1118151)
Great design. I just hope that this will be the new start of a wave of simple robot designs for all teams in the years to come.

The best specialized robots in the past few years have been anything but simple though.

I'm thinking like 469 (2010), this robot, 71 (2002), 148 (2008).

I think teams forget that in order to be successful with one of these specialized designs, you have to have major good engineering, tweaking, and testing going on.

dellagd 01-02-2012 22:21

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DavisC (Post 1118189)
Great job! My team is working on a different/similar design because we were doing a holding mechanism that was similar but powered by motors and had no ramp so we have a higher notch shooter.

I also did some pixel calculations using paint and this is my find (roughly):
wheels = 104 pixels sooo,
1 inch = 17.33 pixels
14 inches= 242.67 pixels
Past the frame perimeter:
extends = 237 pixels sooo,
final extends = ~~13.67 inches, seems good to me.

also in the picture with the ramp set up, was that 22 degrees. I calculated about 27 degrees (probably just a calculation error, unless the picture was before a mod that allowed it to be only 22 degrees).

Phewf! Thats mighty close to be extracted from a picture. But someting tells me that they would have thought of that when they built it :P

CrashTestPilot 01-02-2012 22:56

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
First of all I want to congratulate on such a great design and execution . When I posted the link in our team's forum I added caption to the effect 'this is what I would call a power play (a play that executed correctly will almost guarantee whining a match)'


I am wondering how this ramp design will change the value of wide vs. narrow chassis in alliance selections. Many teams chose wide chassis because it may aid in a) balancing 3 bots, and b) with size of ball intake. This design takes away the value of the wide bots for balancing. As a matter of fact , wide bots would have harder time aligning with and climbing your ramp.

Good luck. I hope the rules are interpreted in your favor .

Andrew Lawrence 01-02-2012 23:01

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CrashTestPilot (Post 1118225)
First of all I want to congratulate on such a great design and execution . When I posted the link in our team's forum I added caption to the effect 'this is what I would call a power play (a play that executed correctly will almost guarantee whining a match)'


I am wondering how this ramp design will change the value of wide vs. narrow chassis in alliance selections. Many teams chose wide chassis because it may aid in a) balancing 3 bots, and b) with size of ball intake. This design takes away the value of the wide bots for balancing. As a matter of fact , wide bots would have harder time aligning with and climbing your ramp.

Good luck. I hope the rules are interpreted in your favor .

The only thing whining in this match would be the team going against these guys! New thought: Can they cross over the barrier at all? It seems like they can't get to the other side like that!

AlecMataloni 01-02-2012 23:07

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256 (Post 1118230)
The only thing whining in this match would be the team going against these guys! New thought: Can they cross over the barrier at all? It seems like they can't get to the other side like that!

I don't see a reason why they would need to if they are just balancing their alliance bridge. Maybe if they are trying to do the coopertition bridge, then they would need to go over the center line, but I think they might be able to drive over the bridge by articulating their ramp if they have to.

Andrew Lawrence 01-02-2012 23:15

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlecMataloni (Post 1118236)
I don't see a reason why they would need to if they are just balancing their alliance bridge. Maybe if they are trying to do the coopertition bridge, then they would need to go over the center line, but I think they might be able to drive over the bridge by articulating their ramp if they have to.

And that's my point! Maybe we'll start to see more successful robots that don't cross over the halfway point at all! If there are teams who solely focus all of their efforts on being able to score well on their side and get on the bridge, then they could essentially rule out the need of getting to the other side! And if they train their human players to feed balls over the halfway line, then they're set for the match! They can even steal balls from the opponent's alley if possible.

DampRobot 02-02-2012 00:21

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256 (Post 1118241)
And that's my point! Maybe we'll start to see more successful robots that don't cross over the halfway point at all!

Thinking about this design today, I came up with this too. At first glance, it looks like it can't cross half court, but would that really be a problem? I can envision some situations in which a robot was approaching the bridge opposite to 179, which might prevent the other robot from balancing. 179 has probably already thought of this though, along with two different ways to avoid it!

ThirteenOfTwo 02-02-2012 00:28

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256 (Post 1118241)
And that's my point! Maybe we'll start to see more successful robots that don't cross over the halfway point at all!

I'm glad to know that I have a "you-don't-need-to-cross-halfcourt" buddy. :)

179, I absolutely adore this robot. Depending on its scoring prowess, I can see this being a real dominating force at your regionals, but I'm sure that you'll be a great alliance partner no matter what happens. Thanks for sharing your great idea and good luck during the rest of build season!

FenixPheonix 02-02-2012 00:30

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
They should be able to lower the bridge, I think. They can use the whole ramp as a lever arm to push it down and drive on top of it. It's clearly strong, since they lift their robot with it. Should be able to handle it, I'd guess.

Mr B 02-02-2012 15:51

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Wow! Once again you have shown that you are one of the most creative teams in the world. Your concept has completely shifted the paradigm of a difficult three-robot balance. I look forward to seeing you in action in Orlando - expect many suitors.

Swampdude 02-02-2012 16:44

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Thank you Andy, Glenn, Roger, Eric, Gary, Mike, Brandon, Sean, Jared, Drew and everyone for all the compliments and interest, we appreciate it. I think the rules vetting is very informative as to how it will be perceived by the refs etc.

To try and answer a few of the questions:
  • When hanging it doesn't touch the lexan ball guard
  • There will be rubber strips under the top channel plate
  • The tip of the ramp retracts 3.5 inches to keep under the 14" perimiter when the ramp is horizontal then pops out when down.
  • Hadn't thought about the perimiter violation rule but I heard a Q&A allows it on the coopertition ramp without penalty

Another neat feature is the strain guages under the upper channel plate will measure upward force of the bridge so we can determine when opposing bot(s) weight is equal to our bots weight. Very colorful programmable LED strips will run up the sides of the ramp that can be seen from both sides of the ramp. The lights will rise as the weight rises, when they reach the top (equalized) they will blink red indicating whoever is driving out to the other end of the bridge to stop moving, then we lift. Plus we will use them like runway lights while the ramp is ready to be climbed. This bot should come in around 110lbs with bumpers, it's very light. I can't wait to see all this stuff do what it supposedly does.

coldfusion1279 02-02-2012 17:12

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swampdude (Post 1118665)
Another neat feature is the strain guages under the upper channel plate will measure upward force of the bridge so we can determine when opposing bot(s) weight is equal to our bots weight.

Nice idea. From my experience with strain gauges, I recommend you use a couple of them in different spots along the contact area and average the values. Then you can compare to one single gauge if you so choose. Last thing you want is momentum or non-equilibrium giving false readings.

But you've thought of all this already, haven't you?

Koko Ed 03-02-2012 19:33

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1117653)
Nothing is guaranteed. The average regional match would probably feature teams that have trouble climbing the ramp.

Not to take anything away from 179, but everyone on Chief always freaks out and starts exclaiming "EINSTEIN!!!!" as soon as they see the first out of the box/good robot posted. It's never that simple.

It'll happen again when we get our first great looking robot reveal video (usually reserved for 118). Ever notice you never see one from 1114, 71 or 67 (Wildstang did it in 2004)?

Andrew Lawrence 03-02-2012 19:36

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Koko Ed (Post 1119419)
It'll happen again when we get our first great looking robot reveal video (usually reserved for 118). Ever notice you never see one from 1114, 71 or 67 (Wildstang did it in 2004)?

Yup! Best one to date, IMO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgdG...&lf=plpp_video

pfreivald 03-02-2012 21:23

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Neat robot! Very aggressive in terms of rules interpretation -- I don't think I'm that brave... I'm not sure if that's a caution or a compliment! :D

Siri 03-02-2012 23:51

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swampdude (Post 1118665)
Hadn't thought about the perimiter violation rule but I heard a Q&A allows it on the coopertition ramp without penalty

The Q&A actually said the opposite:
Q:If a robot is designed to be contacted inside its own frame perimeter to aid in balancing, could a team request a waiver of G27 for touching inside its own frame perimeter to aid in balancing the coopertition bridge with an opponent?
A: No.


So any opponent robot that tries to climb you will earn themselves a G27 violation, complete with technical foul. Of course, you may well find times where this an entirely worthwhile tradeoff. Being qualifications though, I wish your coach luck in negotiating these and determining in-match whether they'll actually happen, if you decide to go that route.

Note that G27 can also earn the opposing robot a yellow card for repeated or egregious violations. You may want a Q&A, but I'd suspect there's nothing much repeated (at least not in a single match, and I doubt you'll coopertition balance with the same robot twice) and certainly not egregious.

Swampdude 04-02-2012 17:10

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Video: It's alive!

Grim Tuesday 04-02-2012 18:22

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Very Very nice. I'm liking the wheelies that you're doing, it's a new method of getting over the barrier!

Lil' Lavery 04-02-2012 20:47

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Koko Ed (Post 1119419)
It'll happen again when we get our first great looking robot reveal video (usually reserved for 118). Ever notice you never see one from 1114, 71 or 67 (Wildstang did it in 2004)?

Never?
http://vimeo.com/3277978
;)

Grim Tuesday 04-02-2012 21:41

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
I always look forward for 148.

caseydech 07-02-2012 06:44

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Three things
1: I love the idea of the arm, my team thought about and still might make one of those
2: A concern about a possible issue, when it is latched onto the ramp, the robot's ramp and its latcher ( not sure what to call it) might be both considered outside of the robots perimeter, maybe there would be a way to fix that
3: One of the reasons my team didn't build this right away was because we think there will be a rule update prohibiting this kind of latching on to something
Hopefully it will be allowed, because I love this idea and I'd love to see it in competition, major wowfactor

c.shu 07-02-2012 08:43

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
I dont see the pictures of this robot everyone is talking about?

Andrew Lawrence 07-02-2012 08:56

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by c.shu (Post 1121581)
I dont see the pictures of this robot everyone is talking about?

It's on the first page.

mott 07-02-2012 09:15

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Not to sound too much like a "glass half empty" guy because I'm a huge fan of the basic concept of this machine but...in terms of it's other reported game-play capabilities, has the Swamp team been following this thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=100696

It's painful and long (unlike this thread which is upbeat and long) but there is meaningful discussion in there about GDC rulings that would seem to make the sprocket components on the underside of the 179 ramp illegal.

I know our team is anxiously awaiting the GDC's response to the open questions posted by 148 and 1619 so hopefully one/both of those replies put us all in the clear!

Great work though and good luck!

c.shu 07-02-2012 09:15

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256 (Post 1121585)
It's on the first page.

I have looked at every page including the first. I dont see any pictures anywhere. Is there a link?

Andrew Lawrence 07-02-2012 09:22

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by c.shu (Post 1121590)
I have looked at every page including the first. I dont see any pictures anywhere. Is there a link?

What browser are you using? They're in Swampdude's post, I think,

c.shu 07-02-2012 09:22

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256 (Post 1121593)
What browser are you using? They're in Swampdude's post, I think,

Internet explorer. I have never had trouble before with pictures.

Andrew Lawrence 07-02-2012 09:25

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by c.shu (Post 1121594)
Internet explorer. I have never had trouble before with pictures.

*Insert "Well there's your problem" reference*
Just kidding

It works fine for me on Safari, Firefox, and Google Chrome, however I haven't tried it on Internet Explorer (and don't plan on it), so I can't say whether or not that's the problem.

D.Allred 07-02-2012 11:12

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by c.shu (Post 1121594)
Internet explorer. I have never had trouble before with pictures.

It might be your network. I have IE8 on my laptop. I can see the pictures on my home network, but not from by business network. My company's firewall blocks several types of media sources like Picasa or Youtube.

EricLeifermann 07-02-2012 11:17

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mott (Post 1121589)
Not to sound too much like a "glass half empty" guy because I'm a huge fan of the basic concept of this machine but...in terms of it's other reported game-play capabilities, has the Swamp team been following this thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=100696

It's painful and long (unlike this thread which is upbeat and long) but there is meaningful discussion in there about GDC rulings that would seem to make the sprocket components on the underside of the 179 ramp illegal.

I know our team is anxiously awaiting the GDC's response to the open questions posted by 148 and 1619 so hopefully one/both of those replies put us all in the clear!

Great work though and good luck!

I don't see why the sprockets would be illegal. The 1st part of the ramp that is going to cross the frame perimeter is going to be the very top/part that actually touches the carpet. After that everything that comes after will be part of a "contiguous" appendage. Seems legit to me.

mott 07-02-2012 11:54

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Unfortunately, it's turned out not to be quite as simple as that...

If you review the entire thread and specifically look at post #78 by artdutra04, you'll probably see the concern. In 179's current design, there would appear to be a point in time during deployment where only an edge of the sprockets would be outside their frame perimeter (because the axle connecting it to the rest of the ramp assembly hasn't yet crossed the frame perimeter) making it discontiguous from the ramp.

Swampdude 07-02-2012 11:54

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
The pictures are links from our team Facebook page so your firewall is probably blocking them.

As far as the contiguous perimeter issue, we may need to add a contiguous feature until the ramp edge crosses the plane and becomes the leading edge(split second). It's silly stuff like this that give the poor inspectors an arduous task of pushing all these innocent designs back and hold up inspections endlessly. Wouldn't any time a bot tips a little violate that rule (unless it were completely flat on top)?

EricLeifermann 07-02-2012 12:02

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mott (Post 1121662)
Unfortunately, it's turned out not to be quite as simple as that...

If you review the entire thread and specifically look at post #78 by artdutra04, you'll probably see the concern. In 179's current design, there would appear to be a point in time during deployment where only an edge of the sprockets would be outside their frame perimeter (because the axle connecting it to the rest of the ramp assembly hasn't yet crossed the frame perimeter) making it discontiguous from the ramp.

I personally think everyone is looking into this on a microscopic scale when it comes to what is contiguous. If you go to the hardest and strictest enforcement of a definition of a word you will get what everyone is talking about with things being contiguous. I see it as the sprocket is attached to the axle which is attached to the ramp as one assembly which has already crossed the frame perimeter. Yes the sprocket has its individual teeth that make the chain move but its part of 1 part. I get that those teeth will cross the perimeter at a different miniscule time. The GDC's response to the Q&A's seem straight forward to me, i don't get why people are so worried about it.

artdutra04 07-02-2012 12:25

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann (Post 1121665)
I personally think everyone is looking into this on a microscopic scale when it comes to what is contiguous. If you go to the hardest and strictest enforcement of a definition of a word you will get what everyone is talking about with things being contiguous. I see it as the sprocket is attached to the axle which is attached to the ramp as one assembly which has already crossed the frame perimeter. Yes the sprocket has its individual teeth that make the chain move but its part of 1 part. I get that those teeth will cross the perimeter at a different miniscule time. The GDC's response to the Q&A's seem straight forward to me, i don't get why people are so worried about it.

Common sense and what the rules actually say/how the GDC interprets those things are two entirely different beasts.

Common sense says a wheel or sprocket rigidly attached to an appendage that crosses the frame perimeter is obviously contiguous. If you strictly and exactly follow what the GDC has ruled on G21 in the Q&A forum, these are illegal. Until now, the basic gist of all GDC rulings on G21 has been: "if it is outside the frame perimeter, it must be a single contiguous piece (with the test of contiguous-ness only being the on the parts outside the frame perimeter) at all times. If it is not contiguous, it's considered multiple appendages and illegal".

If this seems inane, it's because it is. You can't build robots based upon what your gut says is common sense or what seems to be the intent of the GDC. You have to build your robots based upon exactly what's written in the rules. You also can't decide to arbitrarily enforce GDC rulings on some things (like whips on an intake roller) and not on others (ordinary wheels on an appendage) even though they both violate the contiguous/one appendage/frame perimeter ruling in exactly the same manner.

I'm really hoping the GDC realizes the untenability of the "must be contiguous at all times outside the frame perimeter" position on G21 in today's team update and comes up with a better solution.

EricLeifermann 07-02-2012 12:47

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by artdutra04 (Post 1121675)
Common sense and what the rules actually say/how the GDC interprets those things are two entirely different beasts.

Common sense says a wheel or sprocket rigidly attached to an appendage that crosses the frame perimeter is obviously contiguous. If you strictly and exactly follow what the GDC has ruled on G21 in the Q&A forum, these are illegal. Until now, the basic gist of all GDC rulings on G21 has been: "if it is outside the frame perimeter, it must be a single contiguous piece (with the test of contiguous-ness only being the on the parts outside the frame perimeter) at all times. If it is not contiguous, it's considered multiple appendages and illegal".

If this seems inane, it's because it is. You can't build robots based upon what your gut says is common sense or what seems to be the intent of the GDC. You have to build your robots based upon exactly what's written in the rules. You also can't decide to arbitrarily enforce GDC rulings on some things (like whips on an intake roller) and not on others (ordinary wheels on an appendage) even though they both violate the contiguous/one appendage/frame perimeter ruling in exactly the same manner.

I'm really hoping the GDC realizes the untenability of the "must be contiguous at all times outside the frame perimeter" position on G21 in today's team update and comes up with a better solution.

I agree with what you are saying but the point i was trying to make in this thread was that they will have already broken the perimeter when the sprockets will cross the perimeter so I (yes im not on the GDC so it doesn't really matter or count) see their appendage as legal.

As for my comment on the microscopic scale people are looking at appendages, I feel that I understand the intent and "description" that the GDC has given of the rule, that I don't see what everyone is so worried about. I understand the logic of their arguments and worries but I don't understand why they have them.

TerryS 08-02-2012 13:27

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
I have to join the chorus that this is a very innovative and well executed design. What blows me away the most, if I'm reading the date stamp correctly, is that this thread started at the end of January...just over three weeks from kickoff! Your team must have some very talented CAD engineers, machinists and welders to put that together so quickly. Either that or you worked 24/7 till that point.

Bravo! Can't wait to see your shooter!

Robert Cawthon 08-02-2012 14:14

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrendanB (Post 1118136)
The biggest issue is not what the dictionary says, but what the GDC believes grasping/grappling/reacting is.

And the robot inspectors at the regionals.

FenixPheonix 08-02-2012 18:12

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Check the latest team update. It has a revision to G21, adding this:

"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."

'Very brief' isn't very strictly defined. However, I'd say that this design fits within it. So long as all of it is intended to go past and does every time it's extended, I'd say they'd be fine. Thoughts?

AlexRoberts 08-02-2012 18:46

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Rampbot!

Elgin Clock 13-02-2012 15:35

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Where do the bumpers get mounted, & how would you define the frame perimiter in this instance? :confused:

TeamUpNext3528 14-02-2012 00:07

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
OH MY GOSH! Amazing amazing! If you guys make it to world i have to see this thing!

Andrew Lawrence 14-02-2012 00:09

Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TeamUpNext3528 (Post 1126210)
OH MY GOSH! Amazing amazing! If you guys make it to world i have to see this thing!

You mean "when" they make it to world's. This robot is by far one of the most innovative designs I've seen all year (Come on other teams!), and I'm willing to bet money that this thing will for sure make it to world's.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:01.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi