![]() |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
when this update came out, I realize that our ingenious and rather fast climbing design was previous illegal, but it is now 100% ok. sighs of relief all around our shop table, but i can see it's not so great for other teams. sorry to all those team out there, i know how it feels since our balancing arms from last year were ruled out late in the season because they sometimes touched the polycarb sheet under the bridge.
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
Obviously an incentive to be in two places at once. Teams Q&A'd for ruling on what constituted an entanglement hazard, etc. and it seemed clear that anything long and flimsy was an entanglement hazard and illegal. So some teams went to a lot of trouble making mini-robots or rigid extension devices to reach across the field to score those bonus points. Week 1 regionals and some few teams show up with motorized tape measures that they shoot across the field. Which seemed obviously illegal. Except the GDC ruled that they were, in fact, legal because they And thus all the teams that put in a lot of work and engineering to come up with a non-entangling solution were really miffed at a huge rule change after the end of build season. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
Wait why? This was a very interesting story, pity you stopped right when it was getting interesting :P |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
I think the despair expressed in this thread might be premature.
The updated rule reads (in part): Quote:
I foresee a referee noting a possible infraction, then checking after the match by having the team reposition their robot as it was when he had doubts to its legality (even if it has to stand on a bumper!). Once the robot is in the configuration, a hoop is passed over the robot. If the hoop can be extended vertically without contacting the robot, the robot was legal. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
When you look at the rule change, it seems that the intent of the rule could be to prevent a team from latching on to the pyramid and then extending towards the side of the playing field, in order to attempt to blockade the field (circumventing the other rule?).
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Here is my interpretation of the new rule and how is kills our design that was so close to sending parts our to be machined. I hope the GDC changes its mind. Since in all likelihood this bot will not come to life in its current form I thought I would share.
![]() Old Rules - Legal ![]() New Rules - Illegal |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Tristan already brought up some good points as how the definition of coordinate systems affects what is "relative to the robot".
IMHO, simplest way to word the volume restriction rule would be to state that: Quote:
Basically, at any given point in time, your robot must be able to be dropped into a giant virtual bucket that's Ø54" x 60"/84". As long as it can fit inside this bucket in some orientation, it's a legal configuration. Much simpler for people to comprehend, and it does not negatively affect teams who based their designs on the pre 2013-01-15 update rulings. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
It allows officials to use the least-restrictive interpretation of what it means to be robot-oriented, and lets much of the existing design work stand. On the other hand, it may go against the GDC's intent, but that's the price FIRST needs to pay for not adequately capturing the intent in the first two versions. More practically, it's hard to judge the size of a 3-D cylinder superimposed over a moving robot climbing an obstacle. But since it was hard enough to judge the size of that cylinder when it was oriented with respect to an obvious reference, presumably FIRST has thought about this sort of thing and can devise some way of enforcing it when the orientation is completely arbitrary. (Hopefully "ignore it" doesn't figure into the final cut.) |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
Do you have a cylinder model of your robot when it is still on the floor, and has just grabbed on to the 1st rung? Most corner climbers with a squarish to longish drivetrain will have a hard time reaching the 1st rung without breaking the cylinder. Not impossible, but it's very tight. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Hopefully this is just a wording inconsistency and a clarification will be coming where the GDC states they did not just 'turn the rule on it's side'.
/pun intended. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
Thankfully our design -which we spent excessive time on to get it within the previous rules - will still work with the new definition. Probably would have saved us half the week if we had this definition to start wth. Grrrrrrrrrrr. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
"...I get the feeling the kids won't be very phased tomorrow" I'm not so sure I agree with you. For my small town team who just started getting noticed by the corporations (think funding) we have been courting for 6 years we were looking forward to possibly the best robot we have ever built/designed. We have (had) a corner climbing bot that we belived would be among the best climbers out there...now? Who knows what we will do until the team meets this evening. With limited engineering resources and funding this has the potential to hurt the morale of more than you may think. Frankly I know it has damaged mine. :( |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi