Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

Sorry if I'm missing something but aren't these two the same thing?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

Yep. I put this in twice for emphasis; I'm pretty sure that adding shielding took well over 50% of the total time teams put in fixing inspection issues.

We had a number of discussions with teams (fortunately, almost all were actual discussions instead of arguments) about the necessity for this. R08 (and a LRI that stuck to his guns) won every time.

If you knew me, you'd have been looking for a smart-aleck comment. :rolleyes:

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

Do robots who never intend to climb the pyramid require belay points. The rules seem to be pretty adamant that all robots need them, but I am note sure why this would be a requirement for a robot that never is going to climb?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

Yes, all bots need them. From the Q&A:

Q194
Q.R10 If you don't plan on climbing above zone 1, do you still need to provide fasteners/mounting points
for the belay system on your robot? If you don't will this violate R10?
A.Yes, [R10] requires all ROBOTS to have attachment points for the belay system.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

The 2 teams we started allied with Friday hadn't been inspected and didn't have bumpers yet. I had to keep going back and forth making sure they'd finish on time and that they had paint/Velcro/whatever. I can understand non compliant bumpers....but when your robot is just a drivetrain how do you not have bumpers at all @-@

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

I will be inspecting at BMR and CRR this year
I will definetly call the teams on guarding of any high speed spinning devices ::safety::
As for the belaying points on ALL robot, the GDC probably felt it was better to say all bots had to have them then have someone lawyering the rule.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

Sorry I have been away from this column for a while but after some reports this weekend I have to add something on bumpers.
Everyone, we really tried to improve the bumper rules and make them easy and understandable. There are some nice drawings that are part of the rule, in particular Figure 4-4. However, please note, the pool noodles and the bumper rules do not allow for the addition of weight to increase the overall weight of the robot. You may not add steel rod, brass, shot or other high mass material to the interior of the pool noodles. Also note that the optional angle stock shown in Figure 4-4 is specified as aluminum. If your bumpers are modified in a such a way, please be prepared to remove the additional weight at your event.

As a reminder, any time you make modifications to your robot during competition, it is required to be reinspected. This includes changes you might make while in the queue waiting for a match. To compete without inspection puts you and your alliance at risk. Inspectors are happy to check your robot anytime during the weekend. I recommend that everyone checks with the LRI prior to making modifications to be sure you are planning something legal and within weight for your robot.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

I might be reading "between the lines" a bit here, Al... but I think your post is perhaps more restrained, positive and polite than something I might have been tempted to post.

Kudos to the inspector who found the steel rod inside the pool noodles for not immediately using said foam-covered rods to deliver a brief and brutal lesson on bumpers! :yikes:

I mean, I'm having a hard time believing that a team really didn't know what was going on here. I remember being a clueless rookie, but this year's bumper rules are pretty hard to miss... or misunderstand.

Jason

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

At BMR, we had to tell quite few teams that they needed to put a guard over their shooting wheels.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

Al,

We had an issue at a week 3 regional with our non-relieving regulator being deemed illegal by the LRI. Obviously, it was news to us as we had passed inspection at our week 1 regional. Also, I saw several other robots with the "illegal" type (evidenced by the yellow locking ring). Fortunately, we had a relieving style on our practice robot and we were able to change it out. I've found nothing in the rules that precludes a non-relieving regulator. Care to comment?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

Our team went through inspection something like eight times in Kansas City, because we kept changing things between matches. The inspectors were very nice about it. It wasn't any hassle at all - we just kept them in the loop and it didn't take much extra time.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

R78
The only pneumatic system items permitted on 2013 FRC ROBOTS include the items listed below.
G. Pressure regulators with a maximum bypass pressure of no more than 60 psi,

R81
“Stored” air pressure on the ROBOT must be no greater than 120 psi. “Working” air pressure on the ROBOT must be
no greater than 60 psi. All working air must be provided through one primary adjustable pressure regulator.
Norgren regulator P/N: R07-100-RNEA recommended.

Jason,
I included the weight reference as many of the events this year have had a robot show up with weight added in some form.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

The Norgren R07-100-RNEA (all-black) and Monnier 101-3002-1 (black and metallic with yellow ring) regulators that have been supplied in many past KOPs are relieving regulators. (But note that Monnier sells very similar models that are not relieving.) While there was once a rule that specified the order of these regulators (to no useful effect), it has thankfully been eliminated.

And as you noted, the rules don't specify a relieving regulator this year. They do call for a regulator with "a maximum bypass pressure of no more than 60 psi". While I'm not familiar with that terminology in the context of a pneumatic system, by analogy to hydraulics,¹ if the atmosphere is the ambient-pressure reservoir, then a relieving regulator would be equivalent to a bypass regulator. (Note also that this would require this to be the maximum output pressure rating, not the maximum pressure that could be bypassed—which would be a nonsensical feature.)

If the basis of the objection was that it was a yellow-ringed Monnier 101-3002-1 used as the primary regulator, the inspector would have been right in any of the past dozen or so years, but in a cruel twist of fate, would have been wrong this year.

If it was because it was a non-relieving regulator, consider asking the Q&A to clarify whether the 60 lb/in² "bypass" language implies a requirement for relieving regulators only. While that sounds sensible, this is a double-edged sword: while the R07-100-RNEA would be legal, other identical-looking R07-series Norgren regulators can be adjusted up to 7 bar or 100 lb/in².

Definitely feel free to provide us with the model (and/or KOP source) of the part you're using, to clarify whether it meets all applicable rules.

¹ In hydraulics, a bypass loop is used on regulators located after a pump, so as to limit the pressure on the input side of the regulator and avoid overtaxing the pump. Instead of overpressurizing the input, it bypasses the regulator and returns that excess fluid to the reservoir.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

Huh, we still haven't been asked to do this. We have one ready, but what sort of guards have the teams needed (i.e. thickness)?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013
 

I will try to poke a 3/4 inch dowel (or something similar to the diameter of a finger) into the wheel(s). If I can contact any portion of the wheel other than the actual diameter that comes in contact with the "flying disk", I will ask for a modification to enclose the wheels.