Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Team Update 1-15-2013 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111324)

chadr03 16-01-2013 08:49

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim (Post 1216374)
I'd also be worried about the cylinder when you first start your climb.

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.

It fit and had about 8 inches to spare.

pfreivald 16-01-2013 09:05

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.

JamesCH95 16-01-2013 09:23

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.

nickpaterni 16-01-2013 09:32

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesCH95 (Post 1216433)
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.

I find it hard to believe this is totally arbitrary. I think if the change stays, GDC should really post their reasoning for the change. I would assume this is some sort of game breaking or safety issue, but it would be nice to hear an official reason.

Cal578 16-01-2013 09:37

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chadr03 (Post 1216338)
Here is my interpretation of the new rule and how is kills our design that was so close ...

Old Rules - Legal

New Rules - Illegal

Our design was similar, and now appears to be illegal. I've submitted to the Q&A on this.
Q184

I agree with what a few others have said: I hope the GDC clarifies that the old designs are still legal.

Gregor 16-01-2013 09:38

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chadr03 (Post 1216415)
It fit and had about 8 inches to spare.

Hope you are including bumpers in that, seems a bit much.

BJC 16-01-2013 09:46

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

rsegrest 16-01-2013 09:50

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickpaterni (Post 1216438)
I think if the change stays, GDC should really post their reasoning for the change. I would assume this is some sort of game breaking or safety issue, but it would be nice to hear an official reason.

Absolutely...

Andy A. 16-01-2013 09:57

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickpaterni (Post 1216438)
I find it hard to believe this is totally arbitrary. I think if the change stays, GDC should really post their reasoning for the change. I would assume this is some sort of game breaking or safety issue, but it would be nice to hear an official reason.

The assumption is that the original rule was 'unenforceable', as there is no easy way for an inspector to verify if a robot could breach the cylinder in all orientations on the pyramid, and impossible for a ref to determine that during a match. Orienting the cylinder relative to the robot makes this pretty easy to check in the pit; have the team extend any arm/appendages and measure.

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.

JamesCH95 16-01-2013 10:01

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickpaterni (Post 1216438)
I find it hard to believe this is totally arbitrary. I think if the change stays, GDC should really post their reasoning for the change. I would assume this is some sort of game breaking or safety issue, but it would be nice to hear an official reason.

The only semi-rational explanation I've heard is that the old rule would be difficult for refs to enforce on the fly.

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.

Francis-134 16-01-2013 10:12

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BJC (Post 1216446)
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

Not to try and delve into the heads of the GDC members, but I believe they changed the rule so that it was reasonably policeable. You cannot within reason attempt to replicate the orientation of a robot that was hanging in the air with a cylinder that is perpendicular to the ground. However, you can very easily re-position a robot on the ground and see if it fits into a cylinder relative to the robot itself.

Making it so both configurations are legal would negate the purpose of the rule change to begin with, or so it would seem.

Jon Stratis 16-01-2013 10:16

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BJC (Post 1216303)
The basic reason I can see them doing this is for enforability. It's already difficult to determine if the robot will fit within the 54" cylinder when on flat ground. Robots breaking the cylinder when transitioning between levels while climbing (especially unintentional) is basically impossible for the refrees to be certain of. In close matches no one wants the deciding call to be made by a ref who from 15 feet away may have seen a robot momentarily break an invisible cylinder...

This.

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?

lemiant 16-01-2013 10:28

Why didn't thy know that a week and a half ago?

Andy A. 16-01-2013 10:28

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1216462)
This.

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?

I agree that the rule is pointless if it can't be 'enforced', but I might suggest that enforcement is probably not what FIRST should be aiming for, rather, the goal should be compliance. Maybe that's a semantic difference, but it seems relevant to me right now.

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.

Tem1514 Mentor 16-01-2013 10:34

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