New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I just received an email blast from the Peachtree regional commmitee. They are now adding a requirement for a "safety interlock", a device that will prevent accidental actuation of a firing system.

The only issue I have here is that since this is not rule put in place by FRC, there is no Q&A, or any other method by which we can get clarification. I have no worries that the launching mechanism on our robot might accidentally fire. I am now worried that we will run into trouble with the inspectors because I do not see an easy way to add an interlock that will not violate the robot rules. Our mechanism is pneumatic in nature, and we must transport the robot with the pneumatic system pre-charged. since the pneumatic rules are very restrictive, most safety interlock systems would violate the pneumatic rules.

There is no governing body I know of to ask questions of, since this was not imposed by FIRST.

This year just keeps getting better.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

We have a pneumatic firing system as well. We designed a mechanical lockout that does not violate any rules. It is simply a metal bar that goes through 2 eye bolts in the frame. The bar keep the arm from firing even if we hit the trigger while it is in place. We forgot a few times with the practice bot. It makes a dull thud when it's fired with the safety on.

I have had lockouts in all high energy devices after we were told by an inspector to add one in about 5 years ago.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Unfortunately, our design does not lend itself to a mechanical blocking device.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I'm almost positive that they shouldn't be allowed to enforce this "rule" as much as it makes sense to have such a safety feature.

Glad I won't have to worry about it. My original team might though.

The only way my teams mechanism would accidentally go off in transport from the pit to the field is if we had a catastrophic materials failure from extreme unprecedented stress. Which can be said of pneumatic based systems as well.

However it seems pretty clear to me that all you have to do to not have to add a whole new subsystem onto your robot is not do this.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

a wire with a hook at the end that is attached to the frame?

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

In general, this is a good idea anyway. Both us and our alliance partners (1126) this past weekend had ridiculously powerful shooters. Both also had a mechanical lock in place for carrying the robot in a stored energy configuration. Whether it's just a steel bar through two eyebolts holding back your catapult (20) or a thick metal pin that holds back a powerful slingshot (1126), the stored energy should be somehow contained for a worst-case scenario.

That being said I know exactly what you mean. Can the regional require this since it is not in the official rules? I'm not sure that's okay.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Ours is simply a loop of high- strength sailing line with a carabiner on it. Loops around the catapult, frame of the robot and back on itself. Giant orange streamer attached to remind us to take it off.

I'm not familiar with your design, but I can't imagine doing something similar is much more difficult for you guys.

-Brando

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

would a ball valve inline work for you?

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I suggest asking Q&A, or more to the point, the frcteams email, to clarify if this particular "rule" has its origins at their level, and, in fact, where it originated. If it does not, they will hopefully clarify that. (And ask if you will need to follow it. If they say no, print the message, securely attach it to the robot, and if the event folks refuse to pass your inspection solely on the grounds that you did not comply with this, ask them to contact Al/HQ.)

Rules and rulings that DO NOT come from the GDC DO NOT have to be enforced, and should NOT be enforced.

Note: I don't disagree with the general concept. I HIGHLY disagree with the following: 1) It appears NOT to come from the GDC. 2) It happens AFTER WEEK 3 of competition--way too late. 3) FRC officials are being expected to enforce a rule/ruling that fits item #1 in this list, which is not in any Manual.

Oh, and 4): Only one event? Seriously? If you're gonna apply something like this, it needs to apply to every event after the date of issue, or to no events at all.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Martin,

I'd ask a very direct question on the Q&A as soon as possible. Individual events should not have additional robot requirements that either supplement or contradict the FRC Manual / Q&A. If this ruling was created in conjunction with the GDC, then it needs to be publicized to all teams through an official form of communication (i.e. A Team Update).

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Small-picture: Ratcheting tow strap looped around? 4901 uses one to fine-tune its release point, but a second one could easily cinch down and prevent firing.

Big-picture: I'm not thrilled with regionals adding "rules" that are not in the competition manual. Many are well-intentioned, but they are infuriating to me as a competitor. (Don't get me started on labeling the main breaker.) Have you tried emailing FRC Team Support?

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

We figured that we would be asked to have a safety lock on the robot because of the safety rules. (And were worried about moving it without one even though it is very difficult to accidentally release our shooter.) We used a steel shaft through holes on the robot frame, but at least a couple of teams I saw used rope and carabiner or bungee cords. The inspectors at Crossroads were helpful with suggestions.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

After looking at the picture of your robot on the blue alliance, I would suggest asking if you could put a removable guard in place of a lock. By guard I mean a tube that would go on the end of the vacuum so even if it was to fire, it would not hit anything. I know this is not the perfect solution but it could be an option (I think).

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

We had already intended to have a safety interlock on our mechanism; not because the rules or inspectors may require it, but because I would rather not have the robot seriously maim any of our team members. These launchers are dangerous mechanisms.

Here's our simple interlock for a pneumatic launcher: PVC piece that clips over a cylinder rod to keep it in an extended position, so that a dry fire results in no movement.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

^This^

The question needs to be asked (something like this ... add or update it to make it better): "Does an individual regional, or district event, have the authority to create and enforce additional rules and requirements without these rules and requirements coming from the official FIRST Q&A or Team updates?"

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I suppose this could be interpreted as the LRI clarifying ahead of time how they will interpret/enforce R8.

The reasoning of the LRI may be that all stored energy devices over some undefined quantity of energy (regardless of type) must have lockouts to be considered "safe" per R8.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Your best bet is to e-mail our head inspector (bottom right of the doc). He has been very good about replying to such questions in the past. It would seem though that all this needs to be is a pin/bar/strap of some sort that you manually remove before and after matches. I think it may be a bit less complex than what you may be thinking. But that said I didn't write it so ask the inspector.

Like said above, this isn't technically a new rule it's a stated manner in which a rather ambiguous rule will be enforced at a particular regional. FIRST left R8 very open and this is our LRIs' interpretation of safe.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Note, this isn't a commentary on what has been proposed by the Peachtree Regional, rather just some suggested steps to ensure any sort of ruling of this type is enforced uniformly and consistently across FRC events.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Martin and Karthik, I think the pertinent sections of the Manual are 5.5.2, 5.5.3, and 3.2.1, rule <G3>. I agree that procedures to ensure safety should be used uniformly at all events.

I expect FIRST staff and Big Al are already talking about this one.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Received from the LRI prior to San Diego regional...

In the spirit of R8, Inspectors will be requiring a couple of items if you plan to operate your robot in this manner:

1) Presence of an interlock independent of the firing system that prevents accidental release of the mechanism while in the pit, queuing line, field placement, field removal or any other non-match time the robot mechanism is "armed."

2) Demonstration to the inspector of proper and safe placement and removal of the interlock.

3) A description to the inspector of your plan for safe field removal if the robot is not upright and the mechanism is armed.

This interlock does not have to be part of your robot.

For many teams a strap sufficed.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Yup, understood; the LRI has final authority at events. I just would hope that if something is deemed a necessary safety addition for Georgia, it would be deemed so for all events. Along with this, I would hope the contrapositive also applies.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Looks like this is not just for Georgia.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I think it is illegal to do that. Here's R89:

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

In my opinion, safety trumps all, so yes they could, rules or not. Just my opinion.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

What about a ball valve that can be locked open during matches and inspections (e.g. of the type used for lockout tags)?

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I just saw this post but I am guessing that the email is in response to Team Update 2014-2-18

"General Updates
As we approach competition season, we wanted to remind Teams to prioritize safety when transporting their ROBOT on and off the FIELD, to include transporting the ROBOT in its lowest potential energy state and/or including lockouts to help mitigate unexpected release of stored energy. Inspectors will ensure ROBOTS comply with R8 and do not create unsafe conditions. If inspectors feel your ROBOT is unsafe to be transported while storing energy, they will work with you to add lockouts to help mitigate the unexpected release of stored energy. If you are unsure as to whether or not you need lockouts, it’s best to be on the safe side and assume you do. Per T12, the Team should be able to safely release stored energy and be able to demonstrate this during Inspection. If the ROBOT creates an unsafe condition for people to be around it, on-FIELD troubleshooting prior to the MATCH will be limited to that which can be achieved safely."


I am sure that the LRI is taking a proactive stance since more than one person has been injured by the unintentional release of stored energy at an FRC event this season. Of course this statement is simply a further reminder of the importance of following R8 and as listed T12 in your design.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Martin,

It sounds like this ruling only applies to stored energy shooters. So something that stretches surgical tubing, compresses springs, etc. to develop the impulse to launch the ball. That is, it only applies to shooters that store energy in the shooter itself. Systems that use separately stored energy like the pneumatics tanks or battery shouldn't need interlocks. Otherwise, you'd have to interlock motor powered shooters, drive wheels, and basically every high powered system on the robot.

I can't tell from your TBA picture how your shooter works. Does your shooter actually work in a stored energy configuration? If it works by simply firing a piston, then I don't think this applies to you, as it will only fire under command of the robot. If it works by mechanically locking a pressurized piston halfway, then releasing the lock, then you would have the option of starting matches with the pneumatics charged, but the piston depressurized and safe. Your option for safe transport off the field with an armed shooter would then be to open your dump valve.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I think that if your team uses a pneumatic system as your firing method, you should be safe of this rule. I'm not entirely sure, but since there is a solenoid going to your cylinders, as long as your cylinders are not compressed (i.e. because of test firing your robot before your match), none, or at least VERY little energy is "stored." I think this rule was mainly aimed at protecting teams using a Tension-Based firing mechanism. I know when my team was prototyping a tension launcher, we called it "The Machine of Death" just because of how dangerous it was to be around it... In a tension based setup, when the firing arm is loaded, all of the energy is stored, but in Pneumatics, generally it isn't.

There's my 2¢. I'm not sure if this is true, but I hope it helps.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Just a little background and reasoning behind this announcement.

As Big Al has pointed out. Team update gives power to the LRI to require an interlock on robots which are moved in a state where accidental firing of a mechanism is a possibility. Safety is our prime concern. We don't want to see fingers cut off or heads bashed by these kickers. Accidents have already happened at other regionals, and FIRST does learn from its mistakes. Hence the announcement three weeks into the season.

The Peachtree Planning Committee discussed the pros and cons of this requirement this past week before issuing this announcement. In the announcement, we indicated that the interlock is to be used during transport or when when the robot is charged in the pit area. We expect the interlock to be removed once the robot is placed on the field, at which time the robot should be in compliance with all other rules. The interlock needs to be a safety feature, not a permanent part of the robot. If removable, it will not count against the weight of the robot.

As an example, a team might be using a pneumatic system which has actuators charged with large air supplies and held in the cocked position only be a gate latch. In a case like this, we would like to see a physical lock (a bolt, zip tie, or carabiner) on that gate latch to keep it from snapping open during transport. The safety can be removed once the robot is safely on the field.

Since the original Chief Delphi post did not quote the entire announcement, interested parties might like to read the entire announcement in order to make informed comments. The original is posted on the gaFIRST.org site at the link on email blasts. I think once you read it, you will understand more about how we arrived at this decision.

Robot inspectors will work with teams to see that their robots are safe, as is our charge. We will try to do this without undue stress on teams or unreasonable requirements.

Anyone wanting more information or to discuss this will the inspectors can use the email/phone contact information in the announcement.

See you at the Peachteree, and let's all keep it safe.

Dr. Bob, Robot Inspector
Chairman's Award is not about building the robot. Every team builds a robot.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I should clarify that I am not complaining, just hoping for clarification. I didn't see the email address at the bottom of the attachment (my bad). I will send my question directly to Jeff.

Thanks
For completeness, here is the entire announcement concerning the safety inerlock:

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

If FIRST was concerned about this why did they not make it a requirement at season start. I understand the reasoning behind it but would be more concerned this year about exploding tanks.

I have seen quite a few different shooters and to try and "restrain" them could be very difficult. This would but major stress on a team at the regional as they cannot do anything while the robot is bagged. I also believe that there were games in past years without this new rule that were more powerful than this year yet there was nothing said then.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Don't you have equal concerns for a student handling a locking device that is looped through a gate latch on an energized firing mechanism? If transport is a concern, then a teenagers hands on the device that releases that energy should be a greater concern.

I would think that any locking device should be on the arms of a catapult or on the object that is physically doing the throwing, not on the release device. Not one of my rifles has me touching the trigger to release the safety.

This presents a greater challenge to teams to design something that will work without fail while their robot is bagged. Very few robots that I have seen that didn't plan this into their design from the start will be able to add something that is 100% effective at this point without getting the robot out and we can all admit that the pits aren't the greatest place to engineer a solution to a safety issue. With that said, I hope all teams find a solution to this.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

What makes this different than an interpreter requiring you change something on the robot because he/she deems it unsafe? I have had to do this at least once. It was outside of the rules, but we did it anyway.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Al,

I do NOT disagree with what is being proposed. Safety First.

My issue is whether a regional or district event has the authority to add requirements without an express grant from FIRST through the Team update process or the Q&A process. I believe this sets a bad precident and erodes the authority of the GDC and FIRST.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Yes, in year's past there have been strong shooters. For instance, in 2010's Breakaway game, we saw strong hammer-like shooters. But that year, nothing could extend beyond the frame perimeter. This year, shooters can fire 20 in. outside the frame perimeter where body parts are carrying the robot. The example I cited of a gate latch holding back a fully charged actuator is taken from that year. While ideally the mechanism itself should be restrained, locking the gate latch with a pin may suffice to make it safe.

Naturally, each robot will need to be evaluated on its own merits toward creating a safe condition. Again, our goal is not to harass teams, but to try to reduce obvious risks. To do less would be unthinkable.

Dr. Bob
Chairman's Award is not about building the robot. Every team builds a robot.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

As said before, each robot must be evaluated individually to find a safe solution. The example is only that. I won't argue the point further.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I don't think that peachtree is making up this rule they are just telling the teams that they are going to be very strict enforcing that the FTA, LRI or Head Referee may determine at any time that the ROBOT is unsafe so make sure to bring a safety device to the competition. So I don't think that they are making up rules. They are just reminding teams that they are required to have this. If this change didn't have to do with saftey I would not be for it and I don't think they would be allowed to do it.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

We sent this out to all the teams participating in MN regionals after the week-0 events:

Very similar wording to what the OP received. We saw this not as adding a new robot rule, but giving teams a heads up as to how a specific rule was going to be enforced. This really is all about safety, and we do try to be reasonable about it - if it's not possible for the machine to fire while being transported, we didn't hassle any teams.

Everyone who says the planning committee doesn't have the authority to create a rule is correct. However, the LRI has the authority to enforce the rules already present, including R08. Isn't it better to know how that rule will be enforced ahead of time?

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Last year (not so much at Peachtree) it was wheel guards on exposed shooter wheels. The capacity of a store energy shooter accidentally releasing is a far greater safety risk. At least that is my opinion.

One possibility would be a nylon cargo strap. You could add an eye bolt to the robot fairly quickly. This is a suggestion, I am not designing your robot.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

OK, since we are so concerned about safety why are we not making sure that all chains are covered and gears covered so that the "pinch points" (flavor of the day a few years ago) are protected. Any gears and sprockets should be covered and protected. Gear boxes should be covered so small fingers don't get caught. I have no issues with safety but I do with unwarranted overkill which some inspectors show. I am an inspector and LRI and if I feel something is unsafe I will make sure that the team fixes the issue but I will not go to an extreme and make all teams put something in place.

History - The team I was with a few years ago had many sprockets joined by lots of chain. They were small sprockets and short pieces of chain. Everything was set back 2-3 inches from the face of the robot yet we were told that we had to "protect the area" because of "pinch points". Everyone has a different view of what is safe. If FIRST dictated that all robots must have a safety device attached to their robot I would be OK with that but they haven't.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

FIRST does want this so the LRI is inside the rules. To me the only debatable thing is should FIRST have made this a part of the rules at release or at least earlier on in the season (like week 1 or 2). I'd guess a safety devise designed into a system from the beginning would be a bit better than one hastily attached at a regional.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

In the spirit of debate, I can give an answer.

Pinch points are usually small well-defined locations. They a problem for people who are putting body parts into those locations, and are generally safe if the robot is disabled*. If you aren't touching the robot, you're not in danger. However, stored-energy catapult mechanisms can be a problem for people who are merely nearby. They pose a danger over a relatively large space, and it's often possible for such a mechanism to be fired even when the robot is completely powered off.

* If a pinch point can cause injury without the robot being enabled, I'm all for guarding it well.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Perhaps a little history and experience here would help...
The nature of the game has led to some teams using unusual designs to launch the ball. While most teams design in some form of safety locks or other actuation devices, when needed, other teams do not. This year, far more teams are using pneumatics than in past years. Many of those teams have no experience with pneumatics and have no mentors who use them in daily work. The same is true for springs and other deformed robot parts and yes chains and sprockets. While many of you do not remember the safety warnings of past years, I can tell you they were there. Robot inspectors find unusual mechanisms every week so it is not possible to make a statement about one that covers all mechanisms. Most teams that have experience with the actuating parts they are using, know how to design in safety to prevent any harm to participants and to volunteers. If you are one of those teams that has been unable to design a mechanism that can be safely carried to the field and will not accidentally release when touched by a student or volunteer or by a robot inspector, then plan to be asked to add something to prevent this occurring. There are a number of ways to accomplish this and the Inspectors will assist you. I am sorry if this produces a little stress for you or your team. There have been minor injuries this season and at least one unexpected release where the lock prevented an injury.
Even the team may not be aware of the danger that lurks within. If you have never been in the queue waiting to take the field, then don't ask me to explain how dangerous it can be.

Please remember that boy and girl scouts, FLL and FTC students, parents and grand parents, little children and non-technical folks will be roaming the pits and assisting with the field in every venue including the Championship. They have to be protected as well.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I'm perfectly fine with inspectors expecting this at events. Anything spring-loaded or pneumatically actuated can be much more dangerous then people expect.

Because of the frame perimeter rules, our robot has to start a match with the catapult cocked because otherwise it sticks out of the perimeter. What we do while it i like this is we run a tie-down across the catapult to a few eyehooks on each side. It was very easy to put in, and any team that moves with lots of stored energy should do this. Now if they would let us start outside the frame perimeter in the name of safety, we could solve a decent amount of these problems, but they will never do that.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

My team actually had a very clever implementation on how they keep the catapult safe. If you click the link, you see that they're running a surgical tubing powered catapult, which they'll load after they've placed the robot on the field. However, they still keep the winch for the catapult ready by running the line for the winch to a carabiner, which they'll unhook while in transit.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

OK - as the LRI who "started" this, some background.

When I saw the designs of a number of teams at our scrimmage, I became concerned about the potential for injury due to the potential for the "stored energy" mechanisms to accidentally deploy while being handled. In discussions among the LRI's, it became apparent that I was not alone. Week 1 events announced the "requirement" for a safety interlock if the robot was to be moved in a stored energy state. I proposed this to my Regional Committee who decided to await further developments before announcing the policy. As results of injuries - even minor ones - began to come in, and bolstered by the GDC's Team Update - we decided to emphasise the need for a safety device. As noted previously by Dr. Bob, who worked with me to develop the wording of the announcement, this was not a decision taken lightly. His post accurately describes the thinking behind the process

It is not my nor the Peachtree Committee's intention to place an undue burden on teams, but as noted earlier, the intent was merely to inform teams that the inspection team would be looking for safe operation of the teams' robots - particularly when being transported. As stated in the notice to the teams, recognizing the implications after Stop Work day, the implementation of a "safety device" - probably better wording in hind sight than "safety interlock" - the weight of the device wouldn't be counted in the 45 pound limit for fabricated parts and as long as it was "removed" from the robot in the starting configuration, would not be counted in the robot weight. I also noted that the inspection team would be open and receptive to innovative safety devices.

As has been noted, the expectation is that the device would be as simple as a bolt through a rod, a strap or tie-down to restrain the mechanism, or any equivalent simple device - not to require some elaborate device that would place a burden on teams. Also, as has been noted, my intent was to get the word to the teams prior to the event so they could think about it and develop a simple, basic device to assure the safety of their mechanism and to meet the intent of this policy. Suggestions in this thread alone are basic, easily implemented devices for many designs. If a team's device is inherently "safe," the inspection team will require nothing more.

I trust that teams will agree with the intent of the policy. My and the Committee's only intent is the safety of the participants.

Jeff Rees
LRI Peachtree Regional

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I agree. Orlando had a similar issue where our inspector "made up" the pneumatics rules as he went along. We pulled up the diagram in the manual and asked him where we wrong and where told "its not on there but its not ok". So we fixed that problem and where then ordered to move our main breaker because he felt like telling us to move it.(no rule was violated whatsoever).

None of these "unofficial" updates where conveyed to us before the event.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Out of curiosity, was was the issue with the pneumatic? And was your main breaker easy to reach before you had to move it?

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I applaud everyone involved in this decision for pushing for changes to help ensure the safety of all participants. Considering the inherent risks of transporting a loaded stored energy device, in the interest of safety wouldn't the best solution be to not allow these devices to be transported in a loaded state at all? Especially considering the concerns expressed by some regarding the safety of actually applying the lockout device to a loaded stored energy device, it seems that the safest solution would be to transport your robot to the field while the device is not loaded, then tether up and load the device once on the field.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

We had our pneumatics done as the diagram had showed. however, the inspector required us to add a manual valve and pressure gauge to our off board setup despite both already being installed on the robot.

Our main breaker was installed about an inch in from our chassis perimeter out of reach of any moving mechanism. We where told to move it within 2 inches of our shooter arms.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

R89 says the manual valve needs to be in both places for an offboard system. The stored pressure gauge can be in either place... but I think the inspector took a good idea and made it law.

FYI, if you disagree with an inspector, ask to see the LRI, and the copy of the Manual the LRI should have with him.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Nope. It states that a pressure vent valve must be in both places. This is different from a ball valve. We had a pressure vent valve in place on both but where required to add a ball valve in addition to our vent valve on our off board setup.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

When you plugged in the compressor to the robot, did this go through your (at the time, one and only) manual ball valve? R85 (Figure 4-16) shows the ball valve as still be available to vent all pressure while an off board compressor is hooked up to the system. The intent is for the manual release to be available at all times - for those purposes, having two on the robot or one on the robot and one with the off board compressor satisfies that intent, and helps keep the entire system safe.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

The compressor's vent valve (solid brass, trips automatically, also known as "Pressure Relief Valve") or the "Pressure Vent Plug" (better known as "dump valve" and activated manually)? The compressor's pressure relief valve, I'll buy. But R89 specifically calls for the pressure vent plug, NOT the relief valve. It's not shown on any diagram (in that part of the circuit, at least).

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

There needs to be a sense of reasonableness about this. Sure, hauling the robot to the field in its lowest energy state would certainly be safer, but there are safe ways to move the robot in a high energy state. We have allowed pneumatic systems to be moved in a charged state for a number of years, and if the system is designed and built properly, there should be no danger. For instance, if the pneumatic system only has air stored in approved tanks, and this air is isolated from actuators with approved valves, everything should be OK, and there is no real need for interlocks. If, however, the air valves are in an open state so the stored air is being fed to actuators which are PHYSICALLY restrained from firing by some mechanical latch, then inspectors are going to look long and hard at that robot.

On the practical side, there is not enough setup time on the field to allow some robot designs to fully charge their air systems. Charging while in the queue line doesn't help since the most dangerous time, in my opinion, is between removing the robot from the cart and placing it on the field; here is where kids are in close contact with the robot. Likewise for some spring systems.

The compromise is to design the robot so it can't accidentally deploy while being moved.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Sorry for being so unreasonable. :(

Shouldn't safety trump match timing. If this is that big of an issue and risk to participants, shouldn't we sacrifice a few matches to ensure the robots are as safe as possible? At what point does safety become a secondary concern behind cycle times?

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Can you confirm whether the underlying authority to implement this restriction stems from the robot rules (2014 game manual, section 4), or some other authority, like the inherent responsibility of the event organizers to conduct the event in a safe manner? (Please specify the exact rationale and supporting rules/principles.)

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I agree with this decision. Once our team started to test our shooter I told them I wanted a safety installed back in January. I would not want to be the LRI that let this go by to make people happy about the rules and a student gets hurt. He also has to live with his decisions.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

R8 If the in LRIs view the robot is unsafe, it is in violation of R8. This is not new. Not unheard of or even infrequent that robots have been modified to meet this rule. Even even when at other competitions. the robot met this rule.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

And Tristan - isn't it nice to know how a rule as vague and all encompassing as R08 is going to be handled before you actually get to the venue?

The LRI here could have just kept quiet until the event, then walked around telling teams they needed to rig something at the event, and there would have been no room for complaining. Instead, a pro-active approach to the issue is raising complaints here.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

In case no one else mentioned it, this was also a rule at the North Carolina Regional. As far as I know though, it was not enforced, just a suggestion. When my team's robot got inspected we did not show the judges our safety mechanism at all.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

My concern is not with the ruling, in fact I agree with the decision.

My issue is that regional committees can issue new requirements to teams without explicit approval of the GDC through the team update process or the official FIRST Q&A process. This, to me, undermines the authority of FIRST and the GDC over their game.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

R8 has been that way for as long as I have been involved with First. Build a safe robot is not a new requirement. The trouble is you have so many brillant teenagers (and nutty mentors) dreaming up dangerous ways to do things & such a small GDC. Maybe somewhere like a the safety manual First could provide a non exclusive non binding list of the types of things that will bring R8 scrutiny. That would allow it to be published & updated before kick off.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Frank,
Just when I think I have seen everything, I go to a week one regional and get surprised. When seeing the leg lamp for the first time, I had to ask first "How is it listed on the BOM?" then "How far out of the Frame Perimeter does it extend?" This year I have seen "The Hammer of Thor", eight spring shooters, a 2.5" x 3' pneumatic cylinder with eight tanks. I received a report of a 7.5 gallon tank that takes 30 minutes to fill this past weekend and I have seen just this season, two robots come in at more than 135 lbs.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I agree that foreknowledge of the interpretation of R8 is definitely a good thing, as is the opportunity for discussion here.

I just want to be clear that if the policy is strictly an R8 interpretation (the preamble to the policy references R8 along with other things), that it is only being applied in situations where R8 has force. The robot rules offer no fair and practical way to mandate compliance until (full or partial) inspection or gameplay occurs,¹ and as a result, the robot rules are inherently ineffective at regulating pit and queue safety.

If the intention is instead to promote safety at all times, then the policy should be enacted under the event's authority to make the competition safe for the public.² But this removes the option of applying the penalties specified in robot rules.

From the explanations provided here by the staff of that event, I think it's (properly) intended as the latter, but being confused with the former because R8 was mentioned in the preamble to the policy. Except in the most exigent circumstances, I think FIRST and most participants expect that events will not interfere with the competition formula laid out in the game manual—and that's why the invocation of R8 was problematic. And that's why I'd like a clear statement one way or the other.

¹ For example, it's foolishness to believe that a robot taken apart for maintenance should at all times comply with the robot rules.
² For example, events can make rules like "no smoking" or "no walking under the bleachers", but these are distinct from the competition rules in the game manual.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I'm not quite sure just what you are asking, or why it matters, but after reading your question several times, I'll make a stab at explaining to you the nature of the situation.

FIRST is committed to providing a safe environment for robot competitions--see http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...-manual?id=470, the preamble of which says, in part,
"Instilling a culture of safety is a value that every individual in the FIRST community must embrace as we pursue FIRST’s mission and vision. FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) has adopted safety as a core value and has established the framework for safety leadership in all aspects of the program."

So dedicated is FIRST to safety, that they have produced a Safety Manual, which can be found at http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...%201.31.14.pdf

Several items from this Safety Manual are of importance to our discussion here, including:

Under General Safety,
"Keep full control of robot at all times."

and

Under Stored Energy
"Plan the required activities when servicing or making repairs to the robot. Make sure all team members are aware that work is being done on the robot. Address the following:
Avoid working on an energized robot during repairs unless necessary.
Electrical Energy: Disconnect the electric power source.
- Best Practice - Always de-energize the robot before working on it by opening the
main circuit breaker (“re-set” lever is released) and unplugging batteries.
Pneumatic Energy: Always vent any compressed air to the atmosphere.
- This applies to all parts of the pneumatic system.
- Open the main vent valve and verify that all pressure gauges on the robot indicate zero pressure.
Miscellaneous Energy Sources:
- Relieve any compressed or stretched springs or tubing.
- Lower all raised robot arms or devices that could drop down to a lower position on the robot."

and under Post Match:
"- Relieve all stored energy and open the main circuit breaker on the robot.
-Ensure that the robot is made safe prior to lifting it off the playing field, no dangling parts, etc.
- Remove debris from the playing field.
- Use the above “Pre-lift” and “During the lift” procedures.
- Use the gate opening to exit the playing field. Climbing over the railing is prohibited."

Clearly FIRST expects safe conditions be maintained and has pointed out items in their safety manual which have been reiterated by the Peachtree LRI in his announcement to teams.

Further, FIRST has Safety Advisors at events whose job includes watching for unsafe conditions where ever they find them.

The Peachtree LRI is taking his responsibilities seriously in light of:
-The Robot Rules-Specifically R-8
-FIRST's own TEAM Update for 2-18-14
-Pronouncements from other Regionals
-The fact that high energy discharges have caused minor injuries at other regionals
-Discussions among LRI's in their closed Forum
-Concurrence of the Peachtree Planning Committee which took approval action at its meeting of 3-12-14 (I know since I'm on the Planning Committee, as is the LRI).

Robot Inspectors are just one part of the team which puts on the regional competition. They are charged with making sure robots are first and foremost, SAFE. The Lead Robot Inspector (LRI) is responsible for being the final word on rule compliance, including R-8. If you need a reference, see Section 5.5.2 of the Rule Book, which says:
"5.5.2 Eligibility and Inspection Rules
At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT. Inspectors may re-Inspect ROBOTS to ensure compliance with the rules."

Note that R-8 and Section 5.5.2 do not specify a limitation on the LRI. Thus anytime the LRI becomes aware of a safety issue with a robot, he may take action. It doesn't matter if the robot has been inspected or not, whether it is in the pit or on the field, or anywhere in between, if the robot is creating an unsafe condition, the LRI has control of the situation. Further, if a Safety Advisor sees an unsafe condition anywhere in the venue, he can move to solve it. Others seeing such unsafe conditions should report them. The important thing here is to keep the competition safe.

In your discussion, you appear to be creating two mutually exclusive conditions, either the announcement is made under the authority of the competition, or in situations where R-8 "applies". Let me tell you, R-8 applies at all times the robots are in the venue, before inspection, after inspection, on the field, in the pit, or in between. Your robot needs to be safe at all times and under all conditions. This is not an "R-8 "vs. "Event Authority" dichotomy. Everything which happens at the event happens under "Event Authority" and the LRI is the one designated to be responsible for safety issues at the event dealing with the robot design and operation.

Regardless of how you want to view the authority, the end result is that if your robot comes to the Peachtree, the LRI and his inspection team will work with you to make sure your experience is a safe one.

Dr. Bob, Peachtree Planning Committee Member. Robot Inspector, Mentor, First Ambassador and Volunteer
Chairman's Award is not about building the robot. Every team builds a robot.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

This was communicated to team in the 2014-02-18 manual update

The letter to the attendees of the Peachtree regional was a proactive back up to ensure that all teams were aware of the update and had time to devise a plan to comply with it and an attempt to clarify exactly what would be expected. It certainly is not a case where someone associated with Peachtree came up with their own rules that do not follow the rules as set out by FIRST.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

There was no such requirement at the Dallas Regional.



However we brought and used a 1 ton load chain to clip our shooter to the frame just in case, and also because it was a good iddea

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

While I'm sure you have the best intentions when you attempt to run the event this way, I don't think that's a defensible interpretation of the rules and FIRST's policies. The commitment to safety applies everywhere, but the robot rules (even if they are safety-related) do not. The regional is nevertheless empowered to enact and enforce site-wide policies, and can reasonably require safety interlocks without invoking R8 or threatening game-related penalties.


The LRI has absolute authority over the enforcement of the robot rules via the inspection process. As the manual clearly states, there is no higher authority or appeal process, even to FIRST headquarters. (If the LRI makes an unsatisfactory ruling, they can either be convinced to change their mind, or be removed and replaced by appropriate authorities, but not overruled directly.)

But the LRI's absolute authority does not extend to policies and rules outside the robot section of the manual. (To read 5.5.2 as giving the LRI final authority over other sections of the manual would create a conflict with other officials and staff—clearly the LRI has no gameplay authority, no authority to direct the tournament, etc..) In those cases, like any other event official, the LRI is permitted and indeed expected to promote safety by mitigating immediate hazards and offering guidance, but is subordinate to the person in whom final authority is vested (likely the regional director, in matters concerning public safety). So for example, if an LRI says to a team that they are unsafely using a tool and must stop, since that is a matter of event operations and not robot rules, their decision is not necessarily final and may be referred to the regional director. (Only if the regional director has expressly delegated that decision to the LRI, would it necessarily proceed as you describe.)

If you doubt that a dichotomy exists between rules stemming from the game manual and rules and policies stemming from event considerations, please refer to the FIRST Regional Planning Guide (specifically the sections on volunteer roles and the decision authority matrix).


As for the contention that robot rules apply everywhere at all times, that will inevitably lead to perverse consequences. Many of the robot rules clearly cannot be intended to apply when the robot is off the field or undergoing major maintenance. Consider:

• R3: the size limits would apply in the pits
• R32: unsecuring the battery is illegal
• R35: the APP SB50 connector shall always be connected
• R41: the cRIO must always be connected to the 24 V terminals
• R60: robot control signals must pass through the arena from the operator console

Obviously these do not apply at all times. If R8 is specifically intended to be different, then please prove it in a manner that necessarily follows from the competition manual—because that's the standard an LRI ought to be employing.

Absent such proof, I'd contend that if a team is operating their robot unsafely off the field, the LRI can handle it as a general safety issue by mitigating the immediate hazard and offering guidance as above, and/or they can treat it as an inspection and invoke the rules (like R8) and penalties (like failing inspection). Even though both enforcement actions are potentially undertaken by the same person, the authorities for those actions are distinct and must not be confused.


Returning to the original question, since the safety interlock device is not necessarily a robot part, and is not intended to be used in gameplay, teams must not be given the impression that a game-related penalty (e.g. under T6 or T7 due to an R8 violation) will be imposed for failing to comply with the safety interlock directive. But given that the regional committee has obviously required the use of such a device, I recognize that other sanctions (like exclusion from the premises due to the hazard) could conceivably be justified. In that circumstance, final authority does not rest with the LRI, unless such authority has been delegated.

Basically, the integrity of the competition demands that event staff act only within their authority. If experienced FIRST participants disagree as to the extent of that authority in this case, I'd recommend that the question be publicly referred to FIRST for clarification.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Tristan,
Your own last statement just negated your entire premise. FRC did delegate this safety issue to the LRI and inspection team (and all event staff) long ago. The Team Update was merely a reminder to teams ("As we approach competition season, we wanted to remind Teams") that inspectors are there to help, not hinder, the competitors. Not because they merely chose to do so but because the issue was already covered under R8 (or equivalent in prior years) which the Inspectors have been managing for many years. You know this as a former division lead inspector. I have witnessed you making these same decisions many times. You know you (we) had the authority to make these rulings then as now. You know you were expected to enforce safety and the safe transport and operation of robots both on the field and in any other part of the competition(s). You also know the challenge we experience when we have to make the hard decisions when a team has a design they are hoping will win the competition but is too dangerous to be near.
Now, speaking for all the inspectors, we work hard to insure that everyone has a great event. We do that by working with teams and pointing out the things that they have failed to see in the heat of design and build. Inspectors work very hard at getting everyone compliant and functional and yes, safe. We take very seriously the belief that we are part of every team at a competition and when they fail, we fail, when they win, we win. When everyone walks away from the weekend with a smile and no injuries, we know we have done a great job.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

By all means, please direct your concerns to the Game Design Committee via Q & A. We all eagerly await their final say in this matter.

Dr. Bob
Chairman's Award is not about building the robot. Every team builds a robot.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Al,

My question, that no one seems to want to answer, is: Does a regional have the authority to add a requirement after bag & tag without the express approval from the GDC through the OFFICIAL channels of the Team updates or Q&A?

In this case the Peachtree regional is adding a requirement. The R8 requirement is that the robot "be safe" while the Peachtree requirement is an "interlock". These requirements are not identical.

Allowing regionals to add (or worse remove) requirements erodes FIRSTs and the GDCs authority over their product. and is a slippery slope (how far can a regional go???).

Again, I do not disagree with the INTENT of the LRI for Peachtree, in fact I agree wholeheartedly. But my agreement does not negate the possible abuse that this policy could bring.

JMHO

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Daniel,
I don't think the email from Peachtree has done anything beyond what is open in R8 and what was reiterated in the Team Update. They merely have outlined what steps will be taken as an extension of the Team Update as a courtesy to teams attending their event. i.e. If your robot requires to be transported with stored energy at anything other than zero potential, the inspectors will assist you in making an interlock that prevents it's accidental release. As I have said before, a relatively few teams design their robot in this fashion and very few of those teams have no interlock in place at the present time. I think there were perhaps two teams or less at each of the events I have worked thus far that required this addition.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Daniel - this is not an added requirement. It is a public announcement to the teams attending the event about how an existing robot rule will be interpreted at the event.

Lets pretend the announcement never happened. At the event, the LRI goes around and talks with all the teams with stored energy shooters individually about their shooters and tells them for safety he's requiring them to add some sort of safety interlock if they don't already have it. Would you assume this is a new rule implemented by the event, or would you assume it's covered by R08?

Is it the specific wording of the communication that has everyone upset? Would it have made a difference if, instead of saying "Peachtree Inspectors will be requiring..." it said something like "Peachtree Inspectors will be paying very close attention to R08, and will likely ask teams to have..."?

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Al and Jon,

I think the confusion has arisen because of the inconsistency regarding safety locks. The Team Update strongly suggested them, Peachtree and other events have mandated them, while some events have completely ignored them. If there was a Team Update or Q&A that stated these devices were required at all events, I think this would dissipate almost all confusion. It seems puzzling that something as important as safety would be handled on an event by event basis.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I don't understand how this is worse than last year?

At Hub City, we competed just fine with the robot straight out of the bag

At Dallas, we were required to add a "sneeze guard" around our shooter wheel to contain a rapid unplanned disassembly.

Said guard was to be part of the robot and therefore was included in the 120lb robot weight.

A safety interlock is just about the same exact thing, considering, but it counts towards no weight.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I don't thin Peachtree is adding a requirement. To me it seems that the LRI is going out of his way to disclose to all teams how he plans on enforcing R8 at his event. He is giving all teams a heads up days in advance of what you should have in order to pass his interpretation of R8.

Personally I wish more LRI did this, if they publicized how they would be enforcing some of the grey areas in the rules it would prevent teams from getting caught last minute at the event where there is nothing reasonable they can do to fix it.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Which why if a list of possible R8 issues was to be published it would have to been non exclusive since other issues will come up during the season. And this is exactly why R8 exists in such vagueness.

In answer to another post. Safety starts at the top by First, works its way down through the events, and ultimately gets to the robots in part by the inspection process.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Our shooter is a Barrett cross bow. When pulled back 10 inches it's quite taught, and although there's a pneumatic break pin holding it back, we still made a pin as a failsafe.

I believe rules like this can be enforced under the "Safe" clause of the inspection. If your robot doesn't have a particular safety device an inspector could rule it "unsafe".

It falls under the same category as "dry fire" - while not explicitly stated your inspector may not pass you until you do. (Even though in our case dry firing is more dangerous than not...)

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Certainly I do recall making similar decisions, and I recall the statement in 5.5 that "[e]vent staff have the final decision authority for all safety-related issues within the venue", but I think the issue of delegation is more nuanced than you suggest. First and foremost, such delegation is not licence to use the robot rules in a situation for which they were not designed, but rather to promote safety within the decision-making framework established for event operations issues.

If I'd been challenged on a matter of general event safety, once the immediate hazard was defused, I would not have invoked the LRI's final authority over robot rules, and instead would have allowed the possibility of an appeal to the regional/event director. As an LRI, I was never given the instruction that the regional/event director had delegated all decision-making authority over pit and queue safety to me, and thus left open the possibility that other staff (pit administration, lead queuer, FTA, lead safety advisor, etc.) might have differing opinions that might have to be reconciled by the regional/event director.

As a practical matter, I've been challenged on robot rules issues many times, and rejected such challenges on the basis of the LRI's final authority, but I don't think I've ever been challenged on an event safety question not specifically enumerated in the administrative manual, and therefore never had occasion to refer it to the RD/ED.


This may be something of a fine distinction, but it's important that teams understand that the scope and content of the game manual is constant. If an event wants to be more strict about matters of general safety, it has that right, but it should strenuously avoid implying that the authority to do so at all times comes from the robot rules. (That's the core issue I wanted clarified.)

You might even say that making that distinction makes decision-making easier. Since inter-event consistency is a crucial characteristic of robot rules, but merely convenient in the case of event safety policies, there's less need to worry about whether teams were treated differently at other events. Seen in that framework, it gives events more flexibility to be as safe as they desire, not less. (However, as Karthik notes, it would be even better if event safety were also handled consistently.)

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

This is not an "event safety" issue - it's a robot safety issue. If a robot creates an unsafe condition at any point, it's covered by R08. This doesn't stop at the borders of the field, or when the power switch is thrown. It's all the time. If a robot creates an unsafe condition by not being able to release all stored energy during transport and handling, that's an unsafe condition created by the robot. Stop trying to lawyer-esk this into something its not, Tristan.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Exactly what I thought of Steven for ours when I read the OP thread.....Have you actually dry fired that though w/ that interlock in place? Seems to me mechanically speaking....While much less force will of course be applied by the pressure system during any possible (fully extended catapult), accidental firing, since it has to fill those full open cylinders below the plunger (there is still air volume already in those 2 cylinders at atmospheric pressure)... and our catapult has 3, but is very much like yours, though not compressed to 50-60 PSI of course....It won't be fully possible to just vent out to atmosphere will it? Of course, it also won't be able to extend beyond the cylinder max. rod length either, and will apply a whole lot less force to the mechanism I'm sure. (How much force is my question?)

I just personally (nor would I want anyone else to be), wouldn't want to be anywhere around it during the very first dry fire excercise. We have dry fired our mechanism many times (from rested stroke bottom), just to make sure we could safely do so without damage to the bot or anyone, if asked to during inspection, and it is quite violent to say the very least, without the load of a ball in there. (It hops almost exactly like your "bunny bot" does!)

And (admittedly), we had to beef up to thicker material on the vertical support during or shall I say, after the first few (20-25 or so), loaded & dry fire shots/tests, due to slight upright support tube bending below the pivot point (our tube material was just too thin walled and bent slightly in the middle of the rise, but we found that out early on, and went much thicker walled w/ the final product. (changed the upright on both bots).
_____________________________
If you have actually dry fired w/ that safety device in place at full extension...Does it just reasonably thud and then vent to atmosphere? Or, does it forcefully still bang when the compressed air hits those plungers inside the cylinders that are already extende and at the top of the stroke?
______________________________
Just trying to learn from you first....Then I'll suggest 1-3 of them to the team as we already have a couple of sticks of 1/2" ID poly line here, I bought for another purpose and we never used, that they could easy cut there in Chandler in minutes tomorrow (or even here before leaving tonight since milling the slot would be easier on a mill), then paint red, add the remove before flight ribbons. (Not an engineer here, just a foolish mechanic).

The act of carrying at energy state onto the field always bothers me dearly, for them. (Especially this year, though the know how to safely carry it). After disable or the matches, release is always perfomed first as a ritual.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Of course, removing that particular type lockout (and I think it is a fine example of a number of solutions possible), will still create a few seconds of dangerous time each match for "the remover," once that bot is placed on the field fully charged. Something they are not used to from practice (our catapult is powder coated completely BRIGHT RED, and is also marked in big red letters "DO NOT TOUCH!" down both sides on the top side). They would have to now (touch that mechanism while system is charged w/ energy), hold it up for a second w/ a pc of like pvc pipe, I'd sure suggest, and then remove the lockout and release it, once before each match, and also carry it a little differently (due to a center of gravity difference), from the queing or pre-charging point, onto the field fully extended (makes that small compact bot package a bit taller is all).

We mitigated the safety issue by teaching proper handling (side carry only, never, ever, lean over that bot unless that dump valve is open, and the Master breaker is absolutely off)....They might just be required to change that is all.
________________________
Surely, we cannot ever think of adding a reasonable enabled precharging period of time onfield (say 2-3 minutes or so, to those choosing to use pneumatics in their designs), to each match, once those bots are on the field and all players are safely off....We have a schedule to keep, you know..."The show must go on!" (SRY, I'm just a sourpuss here this morning).

Good Luck to all the Teams competing this week and every week...Go Team 60! (And everyone, please try to be extremely safe in all your actions!)
____________________________________________
As an aside (speaking of safety here), I watched that Team 92 video of the white plastic tank testing (pellet gun damage to a 120 PSI charged tank(s) for fracture damage mitigation purposes), last night, and if you have not watched it yet, and you use those white 2013 Clippard Tanks,...Then, I suggest you need to watch it, ASAP. Great Job there Team 92!)...That is my specific worry for all in attendance everywhere. The shrapnel radius and force is downright scary based on their simple testing.

Just installing the 2014 (KOP) black tanks into a brand new tight fitting set of mounting clips made me just cringe doing the act when they were brand new & empty. And those clips are designed for those specific tanks. Polypropolene may be much better than PVC or other types of plastics though on that particular issue of fracture and possible shrapnel (it has not been tested yet that I have seen, though 92 said they would conduct same testing if some were donated), and the built-in push connectors on both ends are certainly much better I think than added brass fittings and the required tightening sequence done by students.

You can slide em in, or snap them into the clips...But, either way it made me think about all the possibilities later during this game and others. The mounting clips do secure the tanks very well though...Have to give them that.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

We have dry fired with that interlock installed - the result is a reasonable thud as the pistons become rigid, but nothing alarming, and nothing I would see as dangerous. We've actually used the interlock to test the firing code with no ball, and it works quite well. There's no way for the arm to build up kinetic energy when in this configuration.

As far as the exploding tanks go.... I hope we never see one! I will certainly be traversing the pits with more caution this year than last.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

________________________________
Thanks for that info Steven, glad to hear only the "reasonable Thud" part. They need to also do that same thing then I think. Ahh, and yes, it would work for the firing code test too, without creating the "wild energizer bunny effect" on the dry fire...Also very good to know. Much safer in certain areas than an actual dry or loaded fire, for all concerned.

Good luck this weekend to your team! And, I also hope none of us ever do hear that tank explosion sound either! Or feel it...ever.

Just thought I'd mention it after I saw the vid (and your white tanks, not that there is any proof that black ones or any other plastic tanks are any safer that I have seen yet)....Can't tell what type or Mfg. though those actually are from the pic, but they do have the brass fittings.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Let me propose a thought experiment. There's a robot with a mechanism that includes a big metal spring. If that mechanism fails, the spring could be ejected unsafely. To mitigate this, the team has installed a guard that contains the spring in case of failure. This is consistent with the robot rules, including R8.

However, to troubleshoot an interference issue, the team needs to operate the mechanism without the guard, and intends to do so on the practice field. Recognizing the hazard this poses, they propose to place a large metal toolbox beside the mechanism as an effective substitute for the guard.

Obviously this toolbox, which is not a robot part, does not comply with R8 any more than a promise to park the robot up against the alliance station wall for the duration of a match. Would you rule the proposed test an R8 violation, and prohibit the team from conducting it?

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

I fail to see what your "thought experiment" has to do with the LRI asking teams to specifically mitigate known safety risk concerns with their robot. Lets try to stay on topic.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Jon this is not correct.

Without looking at a robot you cannot say there is a KNOWN safety risk.

In addition, R8 requires a shooter to be not unsafe. If a shooter at peachtree is "not unsafe" it will still require a interlock. This IS a rules change, so my question is still valid. How far can a regional go in changing rules (or interpreting them ... if you so wish to argue that point)?

At what point does it degrade the authority of the GDC?

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of the LRI and my team will comply with this very reasonable request, but I am concerned with the precedent it is setting.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Is Peachtree saying that a robot with stored energy but without an interlock in place is unsafe? I believe that there's already a thread on "safety theater" that could be appropriate.

In that case, it would probably be wise to enforce something like G40 on the practice field and in the pits and prohibit students from being in the proximity of the unsafe robots.

My thoughts would be that a cluttered 10 x 10 pit, with a robot in the middle of it, and crowded students troubleshooting a damaged or non-operating shooting mechanism is about the most unsafe condition you can imagine.

If safety is really a concern then prohibit stored energy anywhere except after the start of the game on the actual playing field, where barriers and rules such as G40 are in place.

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

You asserted that R8 enforcement was applicable everywhere, at all times. I provided an example where R8 enforcement would outlaw a safe and reasonable off-field procedure. My implication was that we can still have safety at the event without trying to adapt R8 to situations for which it is unsuited.

The LRI needs to insist upon safety in general, but not necessarily R8 in particular (except at inspection and on the field, where R8 compliance is certainly mandatory).

Re: New robot rules at Peachtree
 

Someone who works on a regional committee gave me some insight to this. If the committee is signing the insurance policy for the event, they may be required to make policy that is in line with the insurance being provided.

We went to home depot and picked up some chain and some interlocks. Attachment 16667