Chief Delphi - Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Page 3 of 17

Last »

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134226)

Thad House

09-02-2015 15:47

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz (Post 1440795)

James, while there is no pneumatic rule that this violates what you will have is essentially a device that moves on it's own without being enabled by the FMS. Potentially that could be a violation of R8.

If thats an issue with R8, wouldnt that mean that any mechanism that is run off of a single solenoid, or any mechanism that moves when air is vented be illegal at that point? We can't control gravity, which causes alot of devices to move when the robot is disabled.

JamesCH95

09-02-2015 15:52

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz (Post 1440795)

So everyone, I am in contact with HQ now over this question. Give me a day or so to straighten this out.

James, while there is no pneumatic rule that this violates what you will have is essentially a device that moves on it's own without being enabled by the FMS. Potentially that could be a violation of R8.

Al,

I have thought about this and I would suggest that it is no different from a typical air cylinder in most regards. It will not change state unless (a) the compressor kicks on and charges air, which only happens when enabled; or (b) the venting valve is opened, in which case ANY air cylinder could move. The only functional difference I can come up with is compared to 'one-way' solenoid valves, that default to a given state when disabled or de-powered, in which case the 'always connected' air cylinder is safer, because it doesn't change rapidly or without explicit input (venting air pressure or charging air pressure).

rich2202

09-02-2015 16:33

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesCH95 (Post 1440800)

any excess pressure will be vented by the regulator.

I would confirm that if I were you. Some regulators block all air going in the reverse direction, and do not have a way to vent excess pressure.

JamesCH95

09-02-2015 16:41

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1440842)

I would confirm that if I were you. Some regulators block all air going in the reverse direction, and do not have a way to vent excess pressure.

The 'black Norgren' regulator specified by the pneumatic section of the manual vents excess pressure for exactly this reason.

Thad House

09-02-2015 16:42

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1440842)

I would confirm that if I were you. Some regulators block all air going in the reverse direction, and do not have a way to vent excess pressure.

Then that regulator is not a legal regulator. According to R71 the main regulator must be a relieving regulator.

Karthik

09-02-2015 17:27

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz (Post 1440663)

John and Rich,
It is my understanding, that bumpers, if used, are part of the robot, just like an arm, a pickup device or the control system. That means that the bumpers are not considered separate of the ROBOT and all rules apply. As such, the bumpers need to be mounted on the robot for weight and size. I suppose you can (for this year only) have bumpers on moveable parts that retract the bumpers into the robot for determining the TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION. Just as in the past, if you have multiple devices that can be used on your robot, all mechanisms must be weighed together, and the overall size will need to be determined for each configuration under R4. The change in the bumper rules applies to this season. There is no telling what next season will bring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1440667)

Al,

R3 allows for minor disassembly to be made to get the robot into its transportation configuration. This would allow them to take the bumpers off and place them somewhere on the robot inside the size constraints. Then when they get on the field they would be allowed to reattach them prior to the match.

I'm very confused here. On one hand we have the game manual saying that we're allowed to perform minor disassmembly to fit into the Transportation Configuration, while on the other hand the Chief Robot Inspector for FIRST is saying that it's illegal. Normally I'd just go with the manual, but as I've been told many times on this forum the Lead Robot Inspector is the final authority at events. If there's been a rule change from what's written in the manual to disallow minor disassembly I'd like to know as soon as possible and I also would like to know why this hasn't been addressed in a Team Update.

jvriezen

09-02-2015 17:59

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

I can't see how the GDC could suddenly declare the optional non defined bumpers to be required to be attached AND within the Transport Config at this point. I suspect a fair number of teams have quick attach/detach bumpers outside the TC that might also have integrated into them other critical mechanisms/purposes.

But I'm guessing since Al is in contact with headquarters, we'll see something about it either way on Tuesday or Friday, if not before from Al on this thread.

FrankJ

09-02-2015 18:11

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz (Post 1440795)

R78 (one valve to vent all pressure) essentially requires that cylinders always be ported to pressure (even if it is through a control valve) or atmosphere. enabled or disabled. Both ways would be the same violation of R8. A blocking control valve would potentially prevent this behavior but they are essentially prohibited by R78.,

magnets

09-02-2015 18:28

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 1440863)

I have a really hard time believing that minor disassembly/assembly when on the field will be made illegal. My team, and many others (likely including yours) plan to take advantage of this unique rule this year, and have spent money/time designing and building robots that take require assembly on the field. I wouldn't say our whole strategy revolves on being able to manually install a mechanism that's considerably larger than the transport configuration, but we've spent over half our robot budget/time working on it.

We have also come in a little bit underweight, so we do plan on removable bumpers this year that are bungeed to the elevator tower when not in use, and dropped into place when the robot's on the field.

EricH

09-02-2015 19:51

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 1440863)

I agree with Karthik. No inspector has the authority to override the Manual.*

Let me put it this way: Right now, my team is considering pinning an item or two onto our robot. Push item onto robot, push pin in, compete, remove pin, remove item and stick in robot, away we go. If minor disassembly is not allowed, we will have to add or modify a full subsystem to accomplish the same task. In one week. It would have been nice to know this, say, two weeks ago.

I also agree that we'll probably hear back either from Al or from an Update very shortly.

*If an inspector (or ref, or field staff) does override the Manual, we can usually expect a blog post in apology if it's anything like a major incident, and a Q&A clarifying if it's not a major incident.

cadandcookies

09-02-2015 20:02

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1440944)

*If an inspector (or ref, or field staff) does override the Manual, we can usually expect a blog post in apology if it's anything like a major incident, and a Q&A clarifying if it's not a major incident.

One would hope. In some areas, however, this is not always the case. In particular last year I remember the rules regarding disabling robots temporarily outside their frame perimeters being somewhat liberally applied outside of the manual definitions, sometimes in ways that severely impacted match results.

Foster

09-02-2015 20:59

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz (Post 1440795)

So everyone, I am in contact with HQ now over this question. Give me a day or so to straighten this out.

Al asked for a day or so to get an answer on the bumpers or as some call them the BUMPERS. Can we dial back the panic until he gets back?

Karthik

09-02-2015 21:37

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foster (Post 1440979)

Al asked for a day or so to get an answer on the bumpers or as some call them the BUMPERS. Can we dial back the panic until he gets back?

There are 8 days left in the build season. If this rule has been changed teams will need as much time as possible to redesign their Robots to account for the change. I don't fault anyone for panicking.

Sperkowsky

09-02-2015 21:51

There's a tiny ir reciever on our robot to control the leds. During matches do you think I will be allowed just to put electric tape over it.

EricH

09-02-2015 22:00

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky (Post 1441003)

There's a tiny ir reciever on our robot to control the leds. During matches do you think I will be allowed just to put electric tape over it.

Electrical tape doesn't block IR very well. Visible light, yes. But IR isn't visible light.

I would suggest aluminum foil instead. But... I would also suggest, and probably more strongly, finding another way to control the LEDs in question.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:27.

Page 3 of 17

Last »

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page