![]() |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Don't forget about frame cutouts. It's possible to park the very center of your robot right on the bottom of the bottom post and grab the first rung without extending outside your frame perimeter at all.
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Our climber design is now illegal per the general interpretation of the updated rules. I had placed orders to McMaster, AndyMark, VEX, and BaneBots literally hours before the update. Now we have spent a good chunk of money and most of our PDV's on a design that is illegal. We've also wasted 10 days working on CAD and prototypes. :mad:
I have lived through all of aforementioned 'major' rules changes. Those changes, while frustrating for some, were designed to capture what was clearly the spirit of the inital rules and/or to prevent game-breaking designs that would ruin the event for other teams. The big difference this time is that this rules change is arbitrary. It serves no more purpose than to make some designs illegal and others legal based on the arbitrary orientation of the robot. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
Q184 I agree with what a few others have said: I hope the GDC clarifies that the old designs are still legal. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
I really don't see a reason that both virtical and robot oriented cylinders could be legal. The only thing this could possibly result in is a greater varience in design and more robots climbing for 30-- which are both good things.
Regards, Bryan |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
At least, that's the leading theory I've heard. Pretty lame when they figured that out a week in, after teams spent time, money and effort working around a thoroughly clarified rule. I sincerely hope FIRST gets it's head right here and realizes how frustrating it is for teams to be dealing with fundamental rules changes well into the build season. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
The proposed '54in cylinder in any orientation' rule is equally as enforcible as the 'robot-oriented 54in cylinder' but allows for a much wider variety of designs. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
Making it so both configurations are legal would negate the purpose of the rule change to begin with, or so it would seem. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
It's certainly possible, but very difficult, under the old rule to examine a robot and tell the refs "if the plane of the robots bumpers tilts more than 15 degrees while climbing and this appendage is fully extended, then it's illegal." Telling them that, however, and judging that on the field is a whole different story. Visually telling how long an appendage is extended is difficult, telling a precise angle is even more difficult. Combine the two in a moving environment, and it's an impossible task for the refs. The result? You would have two camps of teams. Those that paid very close attention to this rule and how it affects their robot while in different orientations while climbing, and those who didn't. You'd see both groups of teams climbing the pyramids, and no penalties called other than obvious, egregious violations of the rule. And one group, the group that's really upset right now, would be really upset that they spent so much time and effort complying with the rule, when a "simpler" design they decided was illegal is actually allowed. It's a catch-22 - either way the GDC went with this would make teams upset. Personally, I think the decision to update the rule to make it more enforceable is the right way to go. I might moan and complain if it forced my team to change our design, but it would still be the right way to go. What's the point of a rule if its impossible to be enforced on the field? |
Why didn't thy know that a week and a half ago?
|
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Quote:
I'd be happy to demonstrate that the robot design is legal per the original rule. Hauling it onto a pyramid and measuring would be difficult at best, but this is an engineering contest. We can do a simple report that examines the robot design in climbing orientation(s), bring that to inspection and use it to demonstrate to the inspectors satisfaction that we're legal. That kind of documentation is common enough in other competitions and business. A better solution is simply to write rules from the start that can be checked easily for compliance during inspection. Failing that, I would rather have unenforceable rules that are at least consistent, then the current moving goal post. After all, it might be moved only to ensure compliance that was already going to be there in 99% of cases anyways. |
Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
Given that the rules for the game have changed may be, just may be the GDC will extend the bag date by 10 days.
We could only hope for a dream to come true.. |
| 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