Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

OK, it is that time again so I will start here with Bumpers (Yes, I have had several teams report that they intend to add bumpers this year).

Yes, you can add bumpers this year but they are entirely optional and...
1. They must be weighed as part of the robot weight, and that total cannot exceed 120 Lbs, R4.
2. The bumpers when attached must also fit in the TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION R3.
3. Bumper construction will be inspected for potential safety hazards and attachments like any other robot parts.
3. As bumpers are entirely optional, they do not need to cover specific areas of the frame perimeter.
4. Bumpers do not need to be constructed as suggested in the Bumper Design Guide found here. Be aware that the guide is a tried and tested design.

In addition to the rules as published, Team Updates come out on Tuesday and Friday each week. If Team Update changes or modifies a robot rule, that change will be part of the inspection process at subsequent events.

I would like to point out a Team Update was published Friday, 2/6/2015, concerning custom MXP boards. This is not a change in the rule but a clarification to make it easier to understand and flow chart is included. Restated, if you have any active components on your custom made MXP board and you are using any of the PWM outputs on the MXP connector for controlling motors or servos, the board can only be one of the three pre-approved boards listed in R58.

More to come later...

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Unless you're going to install the bumpers (in under 60 seconds) once you reach the playing field.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

However, they are still taken into account for Transport Configuration, wherever they are stored on the Robot.

Maybe delete "when attached" from the bullet point.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Is a simplified interpretation: "Except for the pre-approved boards, and boards with no components (board is only line traces), No connection from the MXP board to a Motor Controller."?

Any thoughts on why Custom Circuits cannot be used for PWM, but are allowed on the CAN Bus, and thus might be controlling the Motor Controllers?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I believe that this is in keeping with R57:

As I interpret it, they are trying to ensure that when they issue the "disable" command, that they are certain that it will have that effect. This is both a safety and a game issue.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Because R59 say all motor controllers on the CAN Bus must be controlled by the RoboRIO and R62 says CUSTOM CIRCUITS or other devices that interfere with those communications are not allowed.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Gus,
The TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION will be determined during inspection at the same time as weight. Under Tournament rule T6 there is no provision for removing bumpers to determine size limits.

T6 While transferring the ROBOT throughout the event (e.g. between the Team’s Pit, Practice Field, ARENA, Inspection Station, etc.), the ROBOT must not exceed a volume that is 28 in. wide x 42 in. long x 78 in. tall (the TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION).
(Emphasis is mine.)

Safety is our prime concern for everyone involved. As such, nothing may cause robot movement until and during the times the robot is enabled by the Field Management System.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

There is also no rule requiring bumpers be attached at their operating position for Transport Configuration. During TC, the bumpers could be sitting inside the robot, and on the field quickly attached with pins.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I'm not getting this Al. Why can't I remove my bumpers, store them inside the bot, and transport my bot to the practice field, arena, inspection area, etc. Check the weight & TC volume with the bumpers stored inside the bot, and then put them on if needed for additional inspection, just like I'd put any other attachment on after transporting to the inspection station. Since your quoted rules never mention the word BUMPER, how does your bumper restriction not also apply to any other attachment that must be relocated for transporting?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Al - Is the only option retraction for bumpers? The blue box under R3 states the TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION size constraints can be met with "minor disassembly"., And references G10, which gives a guideline of 60 seconds for on field configuration. I guess the question boils down to the definition of "minor disassembly". Having a set of bumpers that can be removed and placed inside the robot for transport, then attached quickly with a couple of wing nuts seems to me to meet the intent of the rules.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Al,

I can see situations where the only time certain parts, not limited to bumpers, are mounting on the robot is outside of transportation configuration. The rules allow for pieces to be removed from the robot to make it fit in the TC. If all parts of the robot are to be attached at weighing, the robot should not be expected to be within TC. Simply put, being within the TC and having all parts attached might be mutually exclusive for some robots.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

'Bumper' is not even a glossary item and as such appears to have no special distinction as compared to other attachments or robots components/assemblies/mechanisms. In fact, there is no definition of where the boundary between a bumper and a non-bumper element is. If I want to call my steel bar located in the center of my robot a bumper, there is no rule that says I can't do so, and doing so has no impact on any aspect of the rules, as near as I can tell. Heck, I can claim my RoboRio is doing double duty as my bumper.

Edit: Having said all that, there is much practical benefit to not having teams remove and attach bumpers for every match. We've seen how that works in the past for many teams, but I don't think the rules speak to the issue.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Hi Al,
I am a bit confused. I thought that bumpers could be attached on the field as long as they go on within 60 seconds (or reasonable time) G10 & G11 and fit within the TRANSPORTATION CONFIGURATION. For example, if I have an upright on the robot (that only rises 6ft) and I use a bungie cord to temporarily secure my bumpers to that upright that is legal within the rules? Does Q&A Q189 say that that bungie cord would not count against the total robot weight?

Thanks,
Austin

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I have a specific pneumatics question - can air cylinders be plumbed with no control valving (solenoid or otherwise)? I.e. always pressurized in a given configuration so they act as a constant-force spring.

Related to bumpers - I wouldn't even call them "bumpers" anymore, as that term is associated with a part or parts subjected to specific rules and exempt from volume and weight rules. Bumpers, as in BUMPERS specifically defined by the manual, do not exist in this year's game.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

This is a good question, my 2 cents is that it will be ok as long as it matches the diagram in R67.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I would suggest you wait for your Q&A question to be answered. That will carry more weight than what is posted here.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

You can call them "bumpers" but not "BUMPERS".

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

James, I'm not aware of any rules that would prohibit that, providing you meet all rules, of course (the cylinder is on the low pressure side, you have all required components for a pneumatic system, everything is properly rated, etc)

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

The answer to Q312 indicates that pneumatic cylinders are always subject to the pneumatics rules. I don't see any way for a permanently-pressurized cylinder to meet those rules.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Which is precisely why I asked Q&A. However, it never hurts to forewarn/get the opinion of the in-field experts and LRIs like Al and Jon.

Thanks. This is the same conclusion I arrived at.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Allow me to clarify then.

I am not referring to a permanently sealed or pressurized air cylinders. I just want to put 60psi into one side of an air cylinder without a solenoid valve in the way. The air will vent when the pneumatic system is de-pressurized.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

So Q&A 312 refers to a cylinder plugged at both ends. You cannot vent it with the pressure release valve so that is not legal. The Q&A does not address directly plumbing the cylinder to the working pressure line.

Unless there is a rule stating cylinders must be plumbed through a control valve, I don't see how it could not be legal. (Q&A unless Q&A rules otherwise) The pressure regulator is self relieving by rule so over pressurizing the system is not an issue. Now if you where to add a couple of check valves & turned it into a air pump... But check valves are not allowed by rule. Nevermind.

On the subject of bumpers. For this year only you can put lead-iron rods in your pool noodles? :yikes:

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

You must make sure that pressure never exceeds 60 PSI on the working side. If you are using it as a spring, the compression could increase the pressure above 60 PSI. One possible solution is to put a pressure relief valve on the working pressure side that is set to 60 PSI.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Are you sure it will just be for this year?
;)

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Thanks Al!

Since this air cylinder will be connected to the main 60psi working line any excess pressure will be vented by the regulator. This configuration is key in both its operation in our design as well as keeping it legal.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

It's common practice on our robots to plumb pneumatic cylinders so they are pressurized when there is system pressure, and it's also common for there to be a way to have them be "actuated" mechanically, which will increase system pressure momentarily so that the regulator will have to vent it. The only difference he is proposing, is not having a solenoid valve in the system.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Does it move without being enabled by the FMS? If it extends when there is pressure in the system, how does that pressure get there? According to the rules the only way that pressure can get there is via "one and only one compressor" (R68) that "must be powered and controlled by the ROBOT" (R69). If this is the case then, wouldn't this actuator be controlled by the FMS? How is this any different than a solenoid that is locked in the 'on' position?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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).

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.,

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

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.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Whats the concern as long as it doesn't happen during a match? If you can set the LED's during the placement of the robot, wouldn't the IR be inconsequential? It's a receiver, not a transmitter, right? Why cover a receiver when you can just keep the transmitter in your pocket?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Question for you: You set the receiver, and put the transmitter in your pocket. How am I as a referee to know that you aren't triggering something if your hands wander near your pocket?


Here's the result if I do think you're triggering something: I've got my choice of G21 (if during auto), G32 (if the coach sticks it in his pocket), R84 triggering T8 (potential), T21. Almost all of which are cardable (T21 being the unknown factor, but probably a yellow for egregious behavior). That's anything from a disable to a foul+yellow to an alliance red to a yellow. Not a fun combination, should a referee decide that those lights changed because your hand brushed your pocket.

Please don't put the referees in that position. Cover it, or use something else. Use the remote stuff at demos.

Is there a good way to quickly remove the. Receiver on and off like. Some sort of quick release connection.It's close to a pwm like cable by the looks. But honestly I don't know what it really is. I got the strip with the receiver off amazon.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I guess the first question would be: Do the LEDs work without the receiver? The second question (because I don't want to keep you guys from using the LEDs, just find another option that's not likely to get you a penalty or other similar items if it's at all possible) would be: Can you figure out ground, signal, and the other pins?

If the LEDs will work without the receiver, I'm willing to bet that you can get some help to hook them up to another coprocessor, or the roboRIO itself. If not, my suggestion is this: You could either fasten the remote into the robot (securely), but that runs the risk of breaking a few robot rules about wireless transmission and batteries, OR put the remote on the robot cart and one or more of its batteries into your pocket (or elsewhere on the cart--this part is ideal and depends on the type of battery in question). If that latter method doesn't disable the transmitter effectively, I don't know what will--and it removes the chance of the refs thinking that you're changing the lights and thus possibly violating a bunch of rules.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I can answer that question by asking another. You have a six week build time, but the robot is in a bag in your shop. How are the inspectors to know that you didn't work for 7,8, or 9 weeks? This whole system is based on a lot of trust and honesty, are we really worried about a strip of LED's in the grand scheme of things.

The other easy thing would be, if the lights change color during a match then the ref would take action. That's seems pretty open and shut to me.

I was planning on changing the color in the pits to the color of alliance. Leaving the remote in my pit and bringing the robot to the field with electric tape over the receiver. The remote would stay far away from the bot at all times unless in the pit. I don't know whether it will work connected to the robo Rio as its a mere consumer product that I just wired up to the pdb.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Guys,
What I am worried about with an uncontrolled cylinder is the fact that most teams (perhaps all that use pneumatics) pressurize their robot in the pits or in queue prior to going on the field. As always, we are concerned for the safety of the teams and robots near your robot when in these areas. As I stated, on it's own there doesn't seem to be a violation of any rules. It will be inspected at any events you attend just like any other robot parts. Any regulator you use must be a relieving regulator which is intended to vent any excess pressure on the working side of the regulator.

R71 “Working” air pressure on the ROBOT must be no greater than 60 psi and must be provided through one primary adjustable, relieving, pressure regulator.

And if you ask "Have you seen any accidents or near misses with pneumatics in the pits or queue?". The answer is an emphatic "YES!!!"

I do not sit on the GDC. I make inspection decisions based on an understanding of what the GDC intent is for a particular rule. I will have an answer soon on bumpers. Please keep this in mind. If you look at the field and the number and complexity of the field objects, this will be one of those years where timing between matches is going to be dominated by field reset. I expect that G10 & G11 will be fully in force at events as I stated above.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I fail to see how this is any different from any other pneumatic cylinder connected to a solenoid valve. With or without the solenoid the cylinder will either default open or closed. The difference is that it will be a passive mechanism during operation rather than active. Obviously care must be taken when energizing the system regardless.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

There is no difference, it will still be inspected for pneumatic rules and safety.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Al,

Thank you for looking into this, we appreciate the extra effort you put in to inform the CD community every year.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Q&A got back to my question here.

Sounds like we'll be set to go, assuming all pneumatic system rules are met.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I would cut the receiver cable in half and crimp on quick disconnect connectors on each end. This way once the lights are set you can remove the receiver and so no commutation can happen mid game.

Now quick question, if you power down the LEDs do they remember their color? If not, I wouldn't recommend this method as you will burn battery while in line just for your lights.

Also if the goal is just alliance colors, you can just hard wire the black(power) wire of the LEDs to the PDB and then wire the blue and red wires (grounds) to a switch and then the switch to PDB. So the lights would be red or blue based on the switch.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Come on, This is pretty ridiculous. Every robot that uses vision would be capable of receiving communication from drivers in this manner. Surely you would not be suspicious of every team that has a camera. Unless you have specific reason to believe that a team is actively controlling their robot illegally during autonomous then I would hope you would not be considering penalties or cards. You are grasping at straws. If a team wanted to communicate in autonomous there are many more reliable, and more discrete ways than a remote control in autonomous. Unless you are equally suspicious of every team that has a camera that even instantaneously looks at the drivers station area, then you are being extremely unnecessarily judgmental here.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

There is actually nothing illegal about sending signals to the robot during autonomous. As long as there is no device on the driver station itself doing it. There was actually a QA about it.

Edit: THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Link please.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Apologies, I must have misread something. G21 prohibits any indirect interaction with the robot.

This would then be illegal.

Thank you for the check Ether.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I would bet that an IR remote is a lot easier to implement than gesture recognition from a camera located on the robot, viewing through the player station or picking out someone in the crowd.

Viewed a different way - an IR remote has no functional value to any team at competition whereas a camera does. With a camera the risk of cheating is worth the added functionality that many teams gain, whereas the risk of cheating with an IR remote is not worth the ability to turn decorative LEDs on and off.

To take your hyperbole-ridden example even further: wifi security is never 100% secure! We should make all of the robots drive around on tethered connections. Obviously this is totally impractical, at some point we must assume some risk because it is worth the reward. I can very clearly see why an IR remote would be disallowed and why cameras are allowed.

Quick release as in a pwm style connector.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

OK,
Here it is...
I screwed up. As people have pointed out earlier in this thread, objects that fit within the 28" x 42" x 78" high size limitation are legally within the TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION even when the team intends to attach those parts to the robot on the field. Inspection will likely check your TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION as defined in T6 & R3, when checking that all of your robot (and additional mechanisms) is weighed.
To remind everyone, bumpers are not BUMPERS and only 2015 rules apply. As such B&T and withholding are affected as well.
I am very sorry for any additional ulceration this may have caused.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

As to IR devices on the robot, this seems to be the defining rule.

R52 No form of wireless communication shall be used to communicate to, from, or within the ROBOT, except those required per R46 and R51 (e.g. radio modems from previous FIRST competitions and Bluetooth devices are not permitted on the ROBOT during competition).

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

No problem, all of the East Coast people were looking for a scapegoat for all the snow. West Coast was looking for one for all the rain. Thanks for stepping up and checking, it takes a big CRI to say they were wrong. :)

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Or Sunny and 80°... :cool:

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Was thinking connectors like this http://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-electrical-wire-terminals/=vundl2 should be able to find some at local store as well. Just makes sure to get the right gauge size.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

If that team's camera is looking at--and the robot is apparently responding to--a sign the team is holding, in automode, durn right I'm gonna be suspicious!

The rules are simple: NO wireless communication to the robot except via the field wireless (or by signal placards etc. outside of automode, should you choose to use that method--but I call it more trouble than it's worth).


That being said, leaving the remote in the pits would--to me--do the trick, at least as far as on-field activity is concerned. Now the whole "wireless within the robot" part of the deal is another story. So let's see if we can get you running without the wireless, and save the wireless part of the cool factor for demos.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Ever consider controlling the LEDs via the roboRIO? Alliance color is available via API:

DriverStation::Alliance DriverStation::GetAlliance()

Return the alliance that the driver station says it is on.

http://first.wpi.edu/FRC/roborio/rel...72988 3ce9855

Positives: no dispute with inspectors, always tracks color correctly.

This was my solution. I just soldered on some pwm connections. This way we can change the leds in the pit by attaching the ir putting on the robot changing the color then taking the ir receiver off. It takes about 11 seconds.


Attachment 18278

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

OK Round 2.
1. With the new control system there will be a need to see all of the components. Please don't hide the RoboRio, PDP and other modules. Inspectors need to see the breakers and the wires that attach to them. Field people need to see all indicators including the radio.
2. Speaking of the radio, if you want reliable operation, be sure to secure the power connector on the radio. A piece of tape works OK but a adhesive backed anchor for a wire tie works best. Either place the anchor on the radio or on your robot near the radio mounting point. If the power connector moves a lot during operation, noise is introduced to the radio power.
3. The radio works best when mounted in the clear on your robot. When you surround the radio with metal it tends to block the antennas inside the box and/or detune them to the point that your connection and bandwidth are affected.
4. The Ethernet connections to your radio should also be secure and mindful of the minimum bend radius of the cable you use. In most cases that is two inches minimum radius. When you bend the cable, bad things happen to bandwidth and the wires can be forced to migrate through their insulation.
5. All teams must connect the CAN buss from RoboRio to the PDP even if you do not use CAN or pneumatics. This connection will be used to log PDP voltage. (R61 & R62)
6. Don't forget the Robot Signal Light. At least one RSL must be mounted on the robot and visible when standing three feet in front of your robot. R54

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

My team has most of the wires in wire channels. Will the RI's be following wires, or just see their connections?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

My thoughts are that they are looking for proper gauge wire going to the correct breaker sizes.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

We usually don't follow wires for their entire length. It's important that we can tell the gauge of the wires, however, and ensure other rules are being met (for example, R42). So make sure we can see an inch or two of the wire on either end, that wire gauge marks are visible if we need to double check them (sometimes your eyes play tricks on you, and you need to read the markings to make sure it's legal).

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

The proper connection of certain wires will be important to verify: roboRIO, VRM, PCM, and bridge power; CAN from the roboRIO to the PDP; and a couple of other things specified by the rules. Aside from that, it's not the job of a Robot Inspector to verify that you have wired your robot so that it will work the way you want it to. They'll mostly be looking for correct colors and appropriate wire gauge.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

If I can add my .02

We're aren't necessarily looking to make sure you wire your compenents correctly to make them work, that's your job, we need to see potential hazards, chafing points, etc...

Also, when mounting the radio, the best orientation is horizontal, due to antennae "radiating" out in a "dome." If you are mounting sideways or vertical , the "dome" will be facing one way, decreasing reception.

Sorry for the non technical terms, I"m a nuts and bolts guy. Al's the antennae guy.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Two words: Hot Glue!
We have never had a plug pop out or any kind of intermiitent failure

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I thought hot glue was brought up by Al as illegal when it was discussed before the 2014 season.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

We have always mounted our radio verticaly and have never had a connection problem but we have also always mounted it up high and unobstructed away from motors and other electronics.

Also a strip of gaffers tape keeps the connecton snug.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

It's been addressed in the 2015 robot manual:

<R55> F. Fasteners (including adhesives) may be used to attach the device to the OPERATOR CONSOLE or ROBOT or to secure cables to the device.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

My apologies I don't read the electrical rules as in depth as I do the mechanical/game rules.

Glad to see this change but of course it comes AFTER we leave the era of using the old style motor controllers with loose PWMs (at least for most teams).

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

That's the root of my question. Do we need to verify that the roboRIO, VRM, and PCM are plugged into the correct ports on the PDP? If so, then we need to be able to follow the entire wire, not just verify that a similar looking wire is plugged into the roboRio port of the PDP.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Hot glue is used by some teams but I really frown on it for a variety of reasons.
1. Unless the parts are near the melting temperature, the bond fails. I see that as giving a false sense of security. Others will surely write that they have had no problems, i bet I can pull more than 50% of those connectors out without difficulty.
2. Hot glue tends to migrate places you don't want it. That make the radio unrepairable for a failed power connector.
3. It is "ugly", that's all I have to say.

Others have stated what I would in response to seeing wires. However, we train our LRIs and RIs to see potential problems so that we can help you be more competitive. So while we are looking at for compliance, we are also seeing other issues. Help us help you.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Since we're just tossing around anecdotal evidence here, Team 1114 has used hot glue extensively over the years it was legal with no failures. It's a practice we recommend to all of our partners and teams we work with.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Due to the nature of how MIMO and multipath radios work, particularly with the geometry of the field (read: end walls), the orientation (vertical vs. horizontal) of the radio doesn't seem to matter too much (especially as the radios are almost constantly moving anyway).

What is important, as Dana suggested, is that the radio is mounted clear of metal or other 5 Ghz RF-opaque objects, which on most robots, is typically higher up. It's also possible that noise introduced by being in extreme proximity to motors may be a factor, however, keeping clear of large, plate-like structures of metal would be my #1 priority.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

We've had a hard time locally sourcing 12AWG wire with sufficient flexibility (high strand count) for our application. We've found 12/3 SJOOW cord whose conductors are perfect if we remove the outer jacket. Unfortunately the outer jacket is the only place that carries the AWG markings. The rules specify AWG but don't explicitly require marking. I know it makes the inspector's life easier, though. Is there a reasonable alternative, such as having a sample of the full un-separated cord on hand during inspection, or are AWG markings on the wire as seen on the robot effectively a requirement?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Bring a sample of the wire.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

It's not as rare as you may think to come across wire with no markings on it. I see it probably every year. Just keep in mind that it's the team's responsibility to prove to the inspector that the wire is the correct gauge. There are multiple ways to do this - have the original spool of wire available with clear markings on the spool itself. Have a same of the wire with the outer sheath you describe with clear markings on the branch. Have some wire strippers with fixed-sized, unmodified stripping locations (Something like this, for example), and show the correct gauge strips the wire correctly.

Just make sure you can show that the wire is the correct gauge!

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

It's not an unusual issue, even for experienced teams.

I was inspecting the wiring from our CIM motors back to the speed controllers, and asked whether they had looked at the wiring table. Turns out they matched the wire off of the CIMs, rather than using the table. Fixing it is now on our punch list.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Another pneumatic system question: does the steel NPT fitting, standard on the Viair compressors, need to be installed?

It is the compressor's fitting that typically comes with a plastic plug in it, seen here:

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

The pressure relief valve must be attached to the compressor with legal hard (non tube) fittings, so if you chose to install the NPT to plastic plug fitting, it must be past the pressure relief valve.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

It comes installed, so you would have to take it off. That sounds like modification to me.

Why don't you want it? It doesn't add much weight, and it gives you an easy adaptation to a tee fitting for the relief valve.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I believe that modification is legal under R65-C since it is pre-existing threads.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

True... but irrelevant to my question.

Removing a pre-installed fitting would be like changing the terminal screws on a Victor. Yeah, it's not precisely the original hardware, but from a safety and function perspective it hasn't changed.

The steel coupler pushes a few fittings and a gauge to a spot that's less accessible (and makes the gauge less readable) so it is handy to not have it in place.

The port in the compressor is 1/8NPT, so attaching normal hard-fittings and tees is the same as attaching to the steel part, it just fits into our robot a bit more easily.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I might be missing something really simple, but I never understood this rule. If the device in question has 14 AWG wire standard, why do I have to feed it with 12 AWG? Are we trying to say that the manufacturer is not using the proper wire? A CIM on a 40 AMP breaker will draw a good amount of current if you tell it to, but why doesn't the CIM wiring dictate what wire is used between the breaker and the speed control?

How does it make sense that I would have to crimp 12 AWG wire to 14 AWG wire after the speed controller to be legal? How does that help?

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

I guess I would counter by saying that you can modify electronics practically all you want. Pneumatics have painful rules in place to prevent accidents that may happen when people don't understand a system.

R65 C might give you a little leeway with that idea though since you are using the existing threads.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Are you sure about that? See R55.

R65-C is why I assume our actions are legal, but I just want to double-check with the in-field experts.

Re: Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015
 

Because you put it on a circuit capable of feeding 40 amps. The RI looks at the PDB and breakers. If you put a 40 amp breaker in the PDB, then that connection has to have 12 AWG wire. The RI doesn't have to follow the circuit to see what it is connected to.