Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

I'm just saying we have come to the conclusion that the GDC has not defined these terms: grasp, grappled, or grab and neither robot literally grasps, grapples, or grabs but figuratively does this based on what you see when it performs.

I love that 118 posted their thoughts but it is the hundreds of posts that follow quoting rules and answers that all lead to the same conclusion.

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

I believe that if the GDC distinguished the rules to be "attaching" to the field, this would have been resolved rather quickly. We all know what the true definition of attachment is and 118 clearly isn't attached to the field anyway since they never had to release any clamping mechanism.

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

Around week 3 I started to wonder what you all were up to and you didn't disappoint at all, always great video and even better robot. good luck!

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

WOW! I can't believe you built that rocket in 6 weeks!!,

P.S. Is that how you ship your robot?

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

If the team wouldn't mind, could 118 post some pictures of the bridge-balancing appendage?

Amazing robot, and blown away by this simple application of forces. Great job.

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

Are you able to "connect" (or whatever rules-neutral term applies) to the ramp in a location that is easily counterbalanced by two bots on top of the bridge without being able to translate sideways yourself?

How well does this mechanism hold you when the bridge pivots from one side to the other?

At what state (bridge angle, other robots on the bridge, etc.) do you connect?

Very nice machine - all of it! Thanks for the video and description.

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

This is where the GDC's policy of not commenting on specific designs comes back to bite some poor head ref at an early regional. I think you should post one more Q&A pointing out that if the GDC doesn't rule on this type of design, a head ref is going to rule for them. Possibly multiple head refs, all coming to different conclusions. Which we all really, really hate.

Personally, I'd lean toward it being legal under G10, for reasons similar to what Justin states. It's certainly not grabbing the bridge. I think 118 is still going to have some challenges proving it doesn't damage the field. Also, I think this plays all kinds of heck with the bumper rules. Per Team Update 2012-01-20, the bumper zone seems to be defined in reference to the flat floor the robot is currently sitting on. 118 pretty clearly isn't sitting on any floor when balancing like that, so i'm unsure what the bumper zone is referenced to at that point. To be on the safe side, i'd want to make sure my bumpers are always in the bumper zone even if that hanging mechanism is off the bridge and the bot is sitting tilted on the floor.

Practically speaking, however, if I had this balancing mechanism, I'm not sure I'd care if it was legal per G10 or not. A G10 violation is a 3-point foul. A third balanced robot is +20 point in elims. I'm pretty sure I'd take that foul every time even if it is deemed illegal.

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

I thought this was an interesting, related question, asked today.

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

Thank God you picked a remix of this song :) we have the original version for our robot video. Which should be up tomorrow! :)

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

There is quite a flaw to it though Kevin. If a fouling occurrence is repeated often, I would more than likely see that the team would be distributed a red or yellow card because of the actions. Correct me if I am wrong but there is a limit as to where it would be used. Come to think of it, if that did receive a G10, wouldn't it possibly not be included within the balancing point accumulation?

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

I think a lot of the frustration being generated by these particular rules is apparent. Many teams thought of creating systems exactly like these: we did as well. The GDC's vague answers and refusal to clarify forced teams to make their own judgement calls.

We don't have the resources to design a mechanism that will likely (our own opinion) be classified as grappling and ruled illegal.

I wish 118 all the best. I will be extremely frustrated if this system is ruled legal by the GDC, thus conveying an advantage to teams that built something like this.

This issue is completely of the GDC's creation. Until they rule, all we're left with is opinion. If it's ruled legal there will be many very upset teams.

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

Let me first say that watching your video has allowed me to really appreciate the engineering that went into every single piece of your robot. There is alot to learn from what you guys do every year.

Upon further review of the bridge manipulator, I have stubbled upon something interesting. Is your mechanism capable of hanging from the low cost option of the field as provided to us here: Team Drawings

I would think that the low cost field is designed to test out all of the games rules and therefore holds some intent of the rules inherently. This also supports the rule against trolling.

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

I'm in agreement with you on this. The first thought I had was to hang off that angle but thought the grappling/attachment rule applied. When I think of grappling I think of a hook. Hence we went through all the trouble of resting on the ramp surface. I also understand the risk taking based on the lack of very specific language. But I think it puts the refs in a bad situation where one way or the other they will alienate someone. My opinion as witnessed in our design is that force would need to be applied to 1 surface of the bridge to avoid being seen as attached. Simultaneous applied forces on opposing multiple surfaces in my book is attachment. Will I have to rethink my logic after this ruling?

Re: The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video
 

I think it is obvious that their CoG is not underneath the attachment point.