Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

I too would like a little more comment from 832 just to get clarification. It seemed as if they were still operating in the beginning of the match as they got in a blocking position against us (4080) and our partner (3489). After a small amount of time (certainly couldn't tell you how long) they stopped moving for the rest of the match. It was all very confusing watching from my point of view as a drive coach. If what you described is what happened, I'm terribly sorry to hear that, certainly a rough way to go out. You were a very tough and strong alliance.

On another note, I'd like to thank everyone for a wonderful event. Thank you to all of the volunteers who helped make it happen! Also thanks to all the other teams at the event. Everyone was very accommodating when we needed help, and very friendly in general. All the teams also helped make sure the event was exciting. The competition was incredibly intense throughout. The eliminations capped it all off well with some very intense and high scoring matches, as well as some strong defensive struggles. On behalf of 4080, I'd like to thank everyone for a wonderful event, we can't wait to come back next year.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

It's my understanding (from talking to our drive team, and from an earlier post) that the field personnel disabled the robot because they were not within their frame perimeter at the beginning of the match. Why the match was allowed to start like that, we'll probably never know. The timing was unfortunate as they were disabled when it was right next to our protected feeder station, and in front of your driver station. None of the initial contact in the feeder area was called, as no foul points were awarded. Apparently, you guys on 4080 adapted beautifully and started raining long range 2s, to the delight of the crowd.

In my opinion, the re-inspection process (if completed) should have found the modifications made to be in violation of R08, parts a) and/or c), which make it illegal to interfere with an opponents visibility from the driver station and/or a robot's vision system. My only real complaint from Peachtree was that the inspection process at Peachtree seemed quite uneven (ours took 43 minutes), but that's for another day, or another thread. For now, we relish in our win! A big thanks to you (4080) and 4026, and see you in St. Louis.:D

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

I will try to add some clarification to what happened to our bot during finals at Peachtree. Sorry for the late reply; I took Sunday off:)

In the finals 2nd round we suffered a fairly catastrophic structural failure. the bottom plate that held the battery and C-Rio fell out of the bottom of the robot because the support brackets failed on one side (they were made out of plastic from a 3D printer...won't do that again). Given 20-30 minutes and the resources of the pit we could have fixed it, but with just a few minutes between matches the best we could do was to install some bolts to support the plate without really attaching to it. It only had to last 1 match; it didn't. We didn't do any post mortem to determine the cause of the robot dying before it was wrapped, however, I suspect an electrical fault.

We neglected to charge the pneumatic system, and has been stated previously this caused the shooter to be in the lowered position, and out of compliance with the starting configuration. Duct tape was used in an attempt to keep the shooter locked up high, but in waiting for the match to start it must have slowly given way.

Then there was the last minute addition of a Frisbee deflector. Our weight was 91 pounds and I believe the defector was less that 60" high. But it was not done though the proper procedure with robot inspections and that is not right. We would have been better served to get the pneumatics charged.

We are very grateful for the alliance selection pick by our partners 1683 Techno Titans and 4509 Mechanical Bulls. We did our best to perform our defensive role within the alliance and literally "left it on the field." We had a wonderful competition, learned many things, and made some new friends. See you guys in South Florida:D

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

That singular piece of corrugated plastic does not interfere with either the robot's vision OR the drivers. If that was the case, our entire robot should have failed inspection under that same rule.

The intention of the corrugated plastic was to deflect the Frisbees, not interfere with vision. Nor would it have.

There was one robot that had a cape of some sort attached to it- That would cause more vision interference than a relatively small piece of corrugated plastic.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

Does anyone know where we can find Peachtree videos? The Blue Alliance doesn't have any, not even any of the elimination matches.

I see 1 or 2 matches posted on YouTube. Maybe more will be uploaded later.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

I respectfully disagree. If the only reason for the barrier is to deflect the frisbees, make it clear or porous and the R08 requirements are met. We worked with another team during qualifications to help them do a defensive upgrade using plastic netting (they had plenty extra). An opaque panel that is approximately 18 x 36" most certainly could impede a robot's camera view if properly placed. If you didn't have clear material or netting, another team would certainly have helped out (maybe even one of your opponents):) That's one of the beautiful things about FIRST.

With regards to others that didn't meet this rule (you're right, but not our robot, BTW) that is on the LRI to see that the rules are consistently enforced.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

Yes FTC 753 (281's FTC team) will be competing at SC State.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

I agree, this is my favorite handout that comes from another team. I used to write this EXACT information in my notepad.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

Yeah, this was the main part that confused me after hearing what I could get from our captain and reading through the thread. Them being disabled, but not being disabled at the start of the match, is confusing to say the least. I guess it will just remain a mystery. Thanks for your side of the explanation Tom.

As for the possibility of 832's robot blocking visibility, this was very minor. The main problem with where they were situated was that it made our feeder station claustrophobic and we never took the time to push them out of the way.

I think that the reason they didn't use a clear material(I definitely could be wrong) was because they were creating the blocker with what they had during the *short* duration of a timeout, so they used what they could. I agree that a clearer material may be ideal to avoid any issue with the rule you mentioned though, given more time that's what I hope they would use.

The only robot that my drivers experienced large issues with during the competition when it came to visibility was a high level climber; and that's not their fault at all, just to be expected.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

In order to interfere with vision of the robot, the barrier would've had to resemble the vision target. It did not. To interfere with the drivers of the robot, the barrier would've had to been much wider and 832's strategy would've called for them to sit in front of the driver station. Neither of which happened. They did not. If you wanted to peg a team for interfering with vision just for having a tall non-opaque surface, then 4509's entire robot would've been considered an impediment to the vision of drivers. It was not.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

From what I saw in the match before, 832 did have major issues with their battery and creo plate, which sagged a foot when they were carrying it off the field, remaining on the robot. As seen in 832's coach's post above and from what I saw on the field, it did not seem that their robot was disabled but rather that they lost connection to their battery and/or creo and/or pdb all from the massive hits from resulting from both 3489 and 4080 simultaneously pushing 832 5 feet and slamming them into the alliance wall. After this, they never moved again and it seemed that they had lost power. From the timing of the robot stopping and the damage inflicted in the match before, that is the conclusion the rest of my team and I drew. Just my opinion on what happened :D
In other news, I had a great time at the regional and hope to be there again next year and see many of the same teams there! Thanks to everyone for making the regional amazing!

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

832 was not disabled by the field. They lost power during the match.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

Being tall and opaque doesn't count as "interfering with a vision system". If it did, many, many robots would be illegal. That line is referring to building features into your robot with the intention of disrupting vision algorithms (i.e. coating your robot in retro-reflective tape).

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

The issues with 832 were multiple. It was the mentors from 4059 doing the addition of the blocker and not the kids from 832 from what several of us saw watching in the stands. It was in my opinion poor judgment of an experienced mentor to place 832 is such a position and I do not hold 832 accountable for the mentors actions.

Here is a list of the infractions as some of us saw:

There are several rules that were broken.
R04
In the STARTING CONFIGURATION, no part of the ROBOT may extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER, with the exception of minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc.

**as the match was being counted down, 1-2-3, the head inspector saw the robot fall into a position outside of its perimeter

G07 Teams may not cause significant or repeated delays to the start of a match. Noted D. Installing bumpers, or any robot maintenance or assembly, once on the field

** this was clearly violated as they let the team come back on the field in an attempt to get it into a legal starting configuration and/or delay

G05 Confined to Starting Configuration

Where the refs went really wrong, is they apparently were not aware of the 'Tournament Rules'
T07
Any ROBOT construction technique or element that is not in compliance with the ROBOT Rules must be rectified before a ROBOT will be allowed to compete or continue competing. ROBOTS must fully pass Inspection before they will be allowed to compete in Qualification or Elimination MATCHES.
T08
At the time of Inspection, the ROBOT must be presented with all MECHANISMS (including all COMPONENTS of each MECHANISM), configurations, and decorations that will be used on the ROBOT during the entire competition event. It is acceptable, however, for a ROBOT to play MATCHES with a subset of the MECHANISMS that were present during Inspection. Only MECHANISMS that were present during the Inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured between MATCHES. If MECHANISMS are changed between MATCHES, the reconfigured ROBOT must still meet all Inspection criteria.

T10
If a ROBOT is modified after it has passed Inspection, other than modifications described in T8, that ROBOT must be re-Inspected.
T07, T08, T10 were violated.

The mentors made a major modification to that other robot that was not part of the T08 inspection. It was not reinspected after the modification. It was allowed on the field and continued modification.

Re-inspection is going back to the inspection area, being weighed, check perimeter, check 54" rule

Feedback is welcomed.


FIRST needs to install a rule that mentors are not allowed to be a part of the drive team. The drive team needs to be made up of students that are part of the team. it is bad enough to see some mentors doing all the build work, at least let the kids drive and coach themselves.

Re: 2013 Peachtree Regional
 

The majority of your post was absolutely spot on, but the ending was quite the bold statement. The vast majority of teams use mentor drive coaches and have since I started in this program 9 years ago. Nothing is inherently wrong with that situation.