Re: Climbing Rules
 

I see you poit, I guess the clarification needed is if that means "touched non-adjacent Levels" only

That is, if the climb restarts even if the clear intent is in making that all one climb.

essentially, I think only an Official FIRST clarification can solve this...

Both answers seem equally likely to be correct to me

Re: Climbing Rules
 

In this scenario, I would have no intention of contacting Level 3. I would receive 30 hanging points because "The Level to which a ROBOT has CLIMBED is determined by the lowest point of the ROBOT (in relation to the FIELD)", which has nothing to do with contact but rather with position in space. As far as I can tell, there is no rule that says you must be in contact with the pyramid at the time this position is measured in order to receive points.

I realize this is not a common scenario, but we do have a potential climbing apparatus that makes suspension largely trivial, so I'm curious. I'm not claiming it'll happen often, but there were a few suspensions in 2010.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Interesting point Siri. Though I think that the coordination and resources spent in Robot A supporting Robot B above 30" would have been better spent by Robot A creating a solo 20-pt climber and picking a different Robot B which could do a 10-pt solo climb. With that said...

Essentially, since level 0 (the floor) is considered part of the climb now, nothing says a robot can't flop down a 1/16" thick ABS sheet (or whatever your favorite flavor of material is), have another robot drive onto it, and get 10 climb points anywhere on the field. As far as I can tell (solely from 3.1.5.2), it still fits the definition of a climb in the current form without any "interpretation". That's a creative perspective that is perfectly within the clear definition of the current rules... totally overlooked by many (like me) I bet. It's a perfectly legitimate way to 'climb' for a team who has next to no budget and is already close to the weight limit before adding a climbing device in.

I suspect that this isn't the intent and will get updated out of strategy playbooks, but who knows.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

No, you have to satisfy both requirements -- touch only two, and touch only sequentially. If you let go of 1 before letting go of zero, you're now touching the set [0,2], which is non-sequential.

Ah, I understand now. If you're referring to robots picking up other robots from the ground and then lifting them above certain zones, I can only answer with this:

I don't care. It's not going to happen with sufficient frequency* to matter the slightest bit to my team.



*I'd be shocked if it happens at all...

Re: Climbing Rules
 

I'm mostly asking for some of my kids who are intrigued (encouraging creativity and all). Even if we do implement the parts to facilitate this--which we'd only do if it were as trivial as is ever possible in FIRST, but this is possible (preferably if our collaboration pulled through on the suspendee side)--I wouldn't expect us to execute more than a handful of times. You know, like the same number of times crazy triple balance stackers needed to win a blue banner. ;) Given the number of people that wrote that off last year and similar work years prior, better to know now than at alliance selection.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

All true enough -- it's just far enough off my radar in terms of what needs to happen in the next six weeks that I'm not going to spend very many brain cells on it. :)

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Hey guys I have a ? . Does anyone know if there is a rule for going up the tower to far. As in havering your robot extending past the top of the tower?

Re: Climbing Rules
 

I think that this Q&A response might answer your question. There isn't a vertical limit for the field in the rulebook, just the height limit for robots.

From the "Scoring" section of the Q&A

Re: Climbing Rules
 

What Karibou said. However, the sides of the pyramid go vertical above the 3rd rung - a potential obstacle for mechanisms that extend parallel to the climbing portions of the sides.

-Karlis

Re: Climbing Rules
 

I was also wondering if there are any rules for going to high on the tower ? as in you robot extends up past the top of the tower?

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Don't CONTACT anything outside of the FIELD

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Like said, don't contact the outside of the field.

There was also a GDC ruling on the Q&A that there is no upper bound for Level 3.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Like the roof of the building. ;)

Re: Climbing Rules
 

I Q&A'd this and (more or less) the 1/16" ABS sheet "climb" just for thoroughness.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Does any one know if the robot's starting position can have a hook over the 30'' bar?!?!

Re: Climbing Rules
 

So I'm going with no. If it is touching the bar at all, then some miniscule amount of weight is being supported by the bar, violating the "fully supported by the bar" condition. Although it depends on how lenient FIRST is (Q & A maybe). A hook that begins hovering over the bar should be fine, however.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

By that reasoning, you can't start a robot touching the outside of one of the corner poles, because the pole would be supporting some small amount of the robot's weight.

I think starting with your hook touching the rung is legal. Or poised over the rung so pulling it in will grab the rung. I'm pretty sure the "fully supported by the floor" clause is to keep teams from starting with a robot already hanging from the pyramid.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Remember that your hook has to be with your frame perimeter in starting configuration. No "mushroom" bots.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Question:

Are bumpers considered part of the robot? i.e. The robot frame is hanging from top rung, the bottom of the frame is suspended just above the middle rung, the bottom of the bumper is hanging just below the middle rung....what zone are you technically in 2 or 3?

Thanks guys...

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Today's team update answers that question: yes, the bumpers count for volumetric considerations. (Thus, you'd be in zone two).

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Actually, I'm a dufus, should have checked Q&A same question posted two days ago and yes the answer is bumpers count...Thanks pfreivald :)

Re: Climbing Rules
 

Oddly enough, I remembered reading it yesterday, but I scoured the Q&A in order to better answer your question, and I just couldn't find it!

Re: Hanging rules
 

I just read through the QA documentation for the climbing rules and from what I can gather your robot can only be in contact with two levels the air space between them only comes into account when scoring. Therefor you could grab level one lift off the ground then grab level two and then grab level 3 while letting go of level 2. So your robot would be grabbing level one and level three simultaneously without braking the rules because A)You contacted the pyramid in sequential order and B) You are in 3 "air spaces" but are contacting only 2 levels making it legal. Again this is just my take I recommend that you check for yourself with this attached file. Good luck to all!!!!!! :)

Re: Hanging rules
 

You are incorrect sir.Your scenario is pretty much identical to this. The GDC has been saying that the sequential order rule really means you can't be touching two non-sequential levels at the same time. 1 and 3 are non-sequential, so your method is an invalid climb.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

The ABS would be considered part of the robot. You can't leave anything behind.

Now, if you put a bunch of discs on the floor by the pyramid, and drove onto the discs, then you would no longer be in contact with level 0. If you then touched bar 1, that would satisfy sequential. You could then touch bar 2.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

G16. TEAMS and/or ROBOTS may not employ strategies that use DISCS to either aid or inhibit a ROBOT CLIMB.

Re: Climbing Rules
 

He was also referring to dropping the abs for someone else to drive on. It would be tricky inside the 54" cylinder.

Re: Hanging rules
 

Q.In order to be a valid climb in sequential order, a robot must be fully supported by zone 1 (off the
ground), prior to contacting zone 2. In other words, a robot cannot be touching Zone 0 and
touching zone 2 at the same time. Is this a correct statement?

A.The first statement in this submission is incorrect. The requirements in Section 3.1.5.2 A and B
pertain to the ROBOT'S contact with the PYRAMID structure and/or floor within each Level, not the
ROBOT'S presence in the physical space of the Level.

If you were right then wouldn't this have to be wrong? :confused:

Re: Climbing Rules
 

The GDC has just revised several climbing rule Q&As in order to restrict the suspension strategies authorized a week ago:

Q: Is it a valid climb and 30 points if robot A is used as a base and is touching the pyramid with its bumper while on the floor at level 0. Robot B roles onto robot A and is lifted straight up by robot A past the 30 inch and 60 inch height requirements for level 2 & 3. Robot A is touching level 0.
A: Please see Q107. We have revised the answer to this question because, after further discussion, we agree that the answer above does in fact conflict with the Game Manual and the intent of the language in the Game Manual. Please accept our apologies. Please see the revised answer for Q107.

Q: Is a robot that only contacts Level 0 considered to have CLIMBED for the purpose of receiving CLIMB points as "determined by the lowest point of the ROBOT" as appropriate? For instance, this would require that contacting only Level 0 constitute contacting in "sequential order" during ascent
A: Yes. We have revised the answer to this question because, after further discussion, we agree that the answer above does in fact conflict with the Game Manual and the intent of the language in the Game Manual. Please accept our apologies. The revised answer is no, a ROBOT that has only contacted the floor in Level 0, but ascended, is not eligible for CLIMB points.

Q: Assume Robot A makes a valid climb to Level 3. 1) If Robot A grapples Robot B and hoists Robot B completely above the first rung, does Robot B score 20 points? Robot B has only touched Level 0 of the pyramid, and has not touched two non-consecutive levels at the same time.
A: Yes. ROBOT B would have completed a valid climb to Level 2 per the criteria outlined in Section 3.1.5.2. We have revised the answer to this question because, after further discussion, we agree that the answer above does in fact conflict with the Game Manual and the intent of the language in the Game Manual. Please accept our apologies. 1) No, per Section 3.1.5.2, in order for a ROBOT to have CLIMBED the PYRAMID, it must contact the PYRAMID in the Levels in sequential order during ascent. In this example Robot B contacted Level 0, but not the PYRAMID in Levels 1 and 2 as it ascended and is therefore not eligible for CLIMB points.

What's up with all these Q&A contradictions/changes?

Re: Climbing Rules
 

I started a thread here to discuss these changes. I think it needs its own thread so more people see it.