Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

I was just wondering how the loss of 20 inches for the perimeter is affecting designs....any thoughts?

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Actually, no. Our team is currently considering a dedicated climb-deposit bot which is essentially a shortened version of the kitbot frame. The smaller perimeter is not really that bad, as this year's game does not need very large robots.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

My team has not run into any problems just yet. With this said however we foresee great difficulty fitting both a climbing mechanism and our shooter onto the chassis. With what is probably one of the hardest endgames in the last few years; I wish they had left the size the same at least for this year.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Does the round measuring device mean that the bumpers must be within that area or not?

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Consider looking in the manual, specifically "The Robot" section.

Looked there couldn't find anything mentioning the bumpers in relation to the cylindrical limitations.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

We plan on having a smaller robot than last year. ;)

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

You're right, it is never called out specifically. However, it does say that

And in the glossary, ROBOT is defined by (emphasis mine):
So are bumpers a part of the robot required to be an active participant?

On one hand yes, as you are required to have them to compete.
On the other hand no, as bumpers are defined in the glossary as
and thus something that attaches to the robot as opposed to being an actual part of the robot.

Unless I am missing something in the rules?

Clarification on this would be useful by Q&A if there isn't anything else providing guidance.

Personally, I believe the intent is that the Bumpers are to be included for purposes of measuring the 54 in. cylinder

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Until it's clarified, that's the "safe bet" that I recommend.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Also keep in mind R05:
The 54" diameter right cylinder would be considered a volume limitation, I would imagine...

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

I think clarification for whether the bumpers count in the 54" determination is very important, and hopefully we will know soon. As MrForbes says, the safe bet is to assume that it does until then. (Better to have a robot that is a little smaller than it is allowed to be than one that is too large.)

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

In the past bumpers have not been considered part of the robot in terms of horizontal measurement R05 seems to confirm this. I think you are safe using the frame perimeter & not the bumpers for this.

Figure 2-5 (G23) shows a robot with no bumpers is the 54" cylinder. Come to think of it is FRANK even rule compliant?

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

I saw this question was brought up in the Robot section of the Q&A.

Isaac

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Question on Q&A has been answered.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

We are creating a square 27 1/2" by 27 1/2" robot to maximize volume and to avoid discrepancies with judges. :)

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Boy that just goes to show you can't predict how GDC will rule on anything. :yikes:

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

If you want to maximize volume, why don't you go with a 35" diameter circular robot? A 35" diameter robot would have a circumference/perimeter of 110".

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

It is often prudent to leave yourself a little wiggle room when it comes to sizing. You may want to downsize to 27 3/8". ;)

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

I predicted it correctly....it's been typical over the past several years that an overall robot "volume" measurement includes the bumpers.

But then, my team is not trying to push the volume boundary, so we can afford to be pessimistic.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

We put together our frame last night, and measured it at 110.5".

I'm liking this rule change more and more... you don't have to intentionally design undersized so your bolt heads fit in the sizing box - just make it to the dimensions you want and ignore the bolt heads (per R02)!

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

....and if you accidentally add some plates or something to the sides and it gets too big, just chamfer the corners!

(spell check didn't like the word "chamfer"????)

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Well this throws a wrench into things...

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Our perimeter (without bumpers) is 110". Does this QA thing mean that we are violating the perimeter rule when we put our bumpers on?

We have not made them for our robot yet but I assume that we will be...


Or am I understanding this wrong?

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

The bumper inclusion is in regards to the 54" diameter cylinder. The 112" frame perimeter is the outer polygon of your robot without bumpers. HTH

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Thanks.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Our club officers and mentors (myself included) have decided to embrace this growing trend of making things smaller, and decided to make a really lightweight robot.

Of course, that was after the hexagonal robot milled out of a solid aluminum block with decagon wheels and a quadcopter swarm for a manipulator was ruled out.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

3735 has been having to think more innovation on how to fit inside the perimeter, but so far we don't have any major problems

Speaking of the 54 inch diameter, how is first going to measure if the robot goes outside of it during the competition?

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

During robot inspection they will but your robot into a circle and then you have to move the robot into its furthest extended position. This will be almost identical to what they did in 2011.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

The problem with that is the inspector won't know what orientation the robot will be in while climbing the tower. The 54" cylinder is with repect to the floor and if the robot tilts while climbing it could go out of the cylinder.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

That is true. Looking at the rules I see a place where they will need another update.

ROBOT height (as defined in relation to the ROBOT) must be restricted as follows during the MATCH:

If in contact with the carpet in its AUTO ZONE and/or its PYRAMID, ≤ 84 in.

A ROBOT’S horizontal dimensions may never exceed a 54 in. diameter vertical cylinder.

Those 2 rules directly contradict each other because the 84" rule is in relation to the robot, but the 54" rule is in relation to the field.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

They don't contradict each other... you simply have to follow the more restrictive one.

Unless, of course, a team update changes things.

Which I hope it will... pivoting a 60" tall robot about it's tallest point would be illegal under this set of rules and I really want to see some pivoting robots!


Jason

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

But they do. If you are using a fully extended robot(83" tall and is perfectly legal) to climb the pyramid and you tilt over, you violate the 54" cylinder rule; but the 84" tall rule still says that you are legal because it is robot-centric.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

84 inches is your vertical height limit, the 54 inches is your horizontal width limit. They do not contradict eachother. You can be 85 inches tall and still be in the 54 inch cylinder. However you can't be 84 inches tall, rotate your robot, and stay in the 54 in cylinder.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

This situation is REALLY going to limit the ascending climb from level 0 to 3 if there are no exceptions while climbing.:eek:

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

You must conform to both at all times. It simply means you cannot tip your robot if you are 84" tall, or you will be in violation of one of the two constraints. Nothing in the rules says you MUST be 84" tall, so you can still legally conform to both parts at all times.

What IS strange is that because one rule is robot-relative and the other rule is field-relative, you can tip your robot while climbing the tower so that your bumpers are in a vertical plane, and now there is no restriction in that direction. I could extend something out of my robot parallel to the BUMPER ZONE planes, and because my robot is tilted 90 degrees, the 84" rule no longer applies to that appendage since it is extending "horizontal" to my robot, but vertical relative to the field. Nothing limits it's height.

This of course, assumes that when they say the 84" height is relative to the robot, they are indeed considering "height" to be the distance measurement normal to the BUMPER ZONE planes. An alternative interpretation is that the "height" measurement is always measured normal to the floor, but that it's always measured from the lowest point on the robot. It's still "robot-relative" in that sense, but not how we're used to defining it. This would, in effect, limit your robot to an 84" tall x 54" diameter right cylinder normal to the floor, but who is always measured from the lowest point on the robot.

They can't say the 84" is always measured from the floor, since that would prevent anyone from being able to grip the 90" tall 3rd rung bar, but they can still make the measurement be taking in the direction normal to the floor, but be relative to the lowest point of the robot...

Experience/history would suggest that "robot-relative" means in relation to a robot resting on a flat floor, hopefully this is the case.

Gosh this is confusing. It would be a lot easier if it was all robot-relative (for inspectors and refs too I would imagine).

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Exactly.

Re: Smaller Robot Perimeter
 

Exactly.

I remember at least one robot in the pre-bumper days that deliberately fell over and then drove around that way.

Both rules have to be satisfied at all times. I just hope teams get penalties for violating these rules as is appropriate, else a lot of other teams will have done a lot of hard design work for nothing! ;)