Re: Ramps
 

For the record, movement in a robot isn't necessarily interpreted as driving around the field, it's just movement relative to the robot.

And I don't see how this conversation relates to ramps.

Team 78 had a tethered piece of their robot by the human player station. It looked like a tote with their numbers on the sides from the webcast, but I can't be sure. Thats a relatively simple solution that can turn any robot with a forklift into a decent HP stacker.

Re: Ramps
 

We were at the Toronto East Regional yesterday and decided we also needed a tethered ramp. We decided to cut a grey tote and it worked out exceptionally well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdb_uN4r8_Q

That is in the practice field. In competition, if we lined up with the end of the ramp, we could sit still and feed an internal stacker our robot employs. We're stacking at the speed of the human feed station! Once we sorted out some robot issues, our day turned out pretty well.

We used a braided nylon line for our tether. So far, no issues with it getting caught in the wheels.

David

Re: Ramps
 

I don't believe that the goal of the GDC was ever to eliminate passive components of robots, especially as an assist to one or more actuators of the "main" robot. Examples would include spring-loaded grippers, passive rollers on elevators and ramps, and all those "ramp-lock" 10-point climbers for Ultimate Ascent which converted robot kinetic energy into potential energy. On the other hand, one of the clear design goals that persists through the years is to allow the referees, through the FMS, to disable the robot. Otherwise, why the requirement for certification of active MXP devices, among others? If an active robot function is allowed to continue after the electronics is shut down, this appears to be outside of the GDCs intent, even if they have not put adequate rules in place to make it so.

Honestly, the GDC's (ok, maybe FRC legal's) worst nightmare would be a robot that was entirely spring loaded and ran about the field operating autonomously. They just plain couldn't stop it, even though it was destroying field elements and tossing game pieces at passing volunteers and spectators. Even the GDC has to have a bit of a Frankenstein complex in these litigious days. If you think I'm just getting silly with the possibilities of mechanical robots, look up Heron of Alexandria.

Re: Ramps
 

But.... that sounds like the greatest thing imaginable!

I would still argue that if a team designed a completely passive robot (no stored energy, no actuators, no battery, just a structure that you put on the field that helps an alliance) it should be permissible. The challenge that we were given at the beginning of build season requires that we score lots of points. If you can solve this challenge without using electrically stored energy or actuators, then you should be able to take that approach.

Re: Ramps
 

If you can make that machine, I'm sure you can find room for a minimal control system to make it legal. You don't have to use any wago terminals from the PDP.

Re: Ramps
 

As a designer, yes. From the GDC's perspective, not so much.

The GDC has decided to require a few components be connected in specific ways. This does not mean that you need to connect them to any actuators, unless I really missed something. Passive components are passive components, and are, by nature, not susceptible to being disabled. Or, as engunneer has posted:

Re: Ramps
 

________________________________
My main question would be, and has always firstly been....Did you then put the REQUIRED Robot # License Plate(s) of appropriate size on your tethered ramp?

As FRANK posted as a clarification earlier in the season..."....If someone has to follow a tether to figure out which robot the additional robot pc. belongs to it would be deemed ILLEGAL per the blue box." (Not the actual direct quote).

It is a simple solution to a simple problem. All Robot sections must be identifiable to team # as one ROBOT (no matter how many pcs. that Robot consists of).

I never argued that static tethered/leashed ramps were illegal. (Unless of course they are not properly identified per the Robot numbering rules, or part of someone elses static set of pre-fabricated holdout wt. per R17 only useable on their robot, or a section of their original Robot per R1).

Made at the event by a single - or multiple teams, inspected & weighed w/ someones Robot who uses it, and identified properly by whatever robot it is tethered/leashed to, should certainly satisfy all those rules IMHO (but, I'm not the rulemakers/decider)...It appears that proper Jury is still out by the Q & A as it still appears unanswered by a check moments ago.
_______________

That ramp appears to do the job perfectly as to getting the first tote on the field in a consistantly upright flat position. Good Job. (Still needs proper # plating though according to the published ruleset & supplementals).

Re: Ramps
 

Yes, we did add appropriate team number markings on all 4 sides of the ramp.
We also were allowed to detach the ramp for matches where we worked the landfill. We were told a simple re-inspection is required, but it's more of a formality.

Re: Ramps
 

Talk to your LRI about the implications of T9 (especially the second sentence) on that ruling. You shouldn't need reinspection AT ALL if you were inspected with the ramp and haven't changed anything otherwise.

Just sayin'.

Re: Ramps
 

Eric et al,
You should read the Q&A for an explanation. If an attachment requires you to remove weight so that you can add it to stay under 120 lbs., then you are required to get an inspection. If you remove that attachment and then add something else, you need an inspection. See Q429. If you remove the added part to go back to your original configuration you must be reinspected.

Please be aware that this may come at a price. The required re-inspection will not hold up any matches. We will do what we can to accommodate teams who are making changes.

As always, this year's rules may not apply next year.

Re: Ramps
 

Yes. Make sure you use solid wire. It will be easy to shape and form. It won't flex up on you. Thank You Thomas (just give me a crabcake) McCubbin

Re: Ramps
 

Q461 has some application to teams giving other teams prefabricated parts. It is a little long so go read the link for your self. It essentially says team cannot share pre-fabricated parts. Team may assist other teams in fabricating parts at the competition. So based on this answer, you cannot tether your ramp to another teams robot. You can help them fabricate a ramp.

Please do not take this as my judgment to what was or was not legal at competitions I did not attend.

Re: Ramps
 

Solid wire will inevitably fail if it's used in an application where it can move (like almost anywhere on a robot, but especially as a tether, even if it's not carrying current). You want to use stranded wire.

Re: Ramps
 

Here's the pertinent wording:

"Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above."

This is quite the interesting take. For the past 10 seasons we've had a specific subgroup on our team called a "Fix-It Crew" that goes around building parts for and helping teams in need. Many times teams have been so desperate that we've made parts for them (typically bumpers) without their help. I guess this is no longer legal.

Re: Ramps
 

I agree Karthik, this clarification certainly seems to outlaw actions which I have seen and/or participated in at nearly every FRC event I've ever been to.

There also seems to be a very difficult line in the sand to draw there between "A helped B build X at the event for B's robot" and "A built X for B at the event". It might sound on the surface like an easy distinction to draw, but to have an inspector actually try to enforce it?

Re: Ramps
 

I would be very interested in getting a more direct answer to things like you mentioned your team does. I know we have the same "crew" and have helped team like that as well. I am not sure why this wouldn't be aloud...99% of the time, the teams requiring the extra help, aren't the ones competing to be on top. They are the ones just trying to make it to the field to do something at least. I mean this year, even if you give that team with a drive train a ramp to use, it will let them do way more than before; that shouldn't be discouraged.
-Ronnie

Re: Ramps
 

I would like to see a future rule whereby at competition, any 'work' on the robot must involve at least two members of the robot's team, unless all members of the robot's team are already working on other parts of the robot or software. For example, if a veteran team is going to build bumpers for a rookie team at a regional, at least have two team members from the rookie team helping out, unless the team only has four members and they are all helping to build the drive train. Helping to build bumpers may be as simple as 'pull this fabric taut while I staple it' -- at least they see how it is done.

Re: Ramps
 

I guess it depends on the definition of "helped"?

If team B had one member involved in measuring, designing, applying fasteners... does that count as A helping team B?

If team B provides some amount of parts and materials, does that count?

Ah, we both had the same idea but you beat me to it.

Re: Ramps
 

I think you are correct. But if you had at least one member of the other team present and being taught even if your team was doing all the work it would meet the spirit and the letter of the rule. The old "teach a team to fish" adage."
I expect that is mostly what teams like yours does anyway.

Re: Ramps
 

Not much different from: Did a mentor build it, or did a mentor help a student build it.

IMHO: Bring along one member of Team B to help do what they can to build the part for Team B's Robot.

If Team B needs that much help, sometimes they don't have the ability to constructively help build the piece. Hopefully by bringing them along, the person learns something they can bring back to the Team when they build next year's robot.

Re: Ramps
 

it appears that this Q&A response makes it illegal for an AC to give a pre-fabricated ramp to their second-round pick. The two teams must work together to make the ramp. I predict a lot of work like this during lunch, just after alliance selection.

Re: Ramps
 

Yup, agreed. I wish they had added this to their response, as it would have eliminated this newly created grey area.

Re: Ramps
 

I bet a lot more teams will be bringing in a lot more raw materials to their events now, and lunch will be skipped on many alliances as they work feverishly to help their 3rd bots upgrade with ramps or can burglars for playoffs.

Re: Ramps
 

Giving serious thought to setting up a pvc pipe outlet store in the parking lot of our next event:)

Re: Ramps
 

Fund Raiser? Can I get a corn dog with that?

Re: Ramps
 

LOL...add some lexan and aluminum angle stock and string/wire you're set for life:D

Re: Ramps
 

Zip ties and duct tape make for great concessions at the cashier.

Re: Ramps
 

Hmmm....

Corn dog can burglar ramp?

Re: Ramps
 

Well, last year it was ruled that bumpers are no longer part of "the robot," so I think that specific example is legal.

Re: Ramps
 

So, if I understand correctly, the rule states that you cannot give a team pre-fabricated ASSEMBLIES, but I don't see any reason why you can't give a team pre-fabricated PARTS and help them put the assembly together. Am I wrong on that?

Re: Ramps
 

Can you explain where your impression of this comes from? The Q&A does not make this distinction. Actually, R17 doesn't either: it works with regard to any "fabricated item" which is defined as any "component or mechanism" (your 'part' or 'assembly').

Re: Ramps
 

I honestly do not know where my impression of that came from, just me thinking of alternative ways to legalize giving other teams a ramp of your own teams design.

Re: Ramps
 

You're going to have some serious difficulty squaring this with safety and efficiency in an on-site machine shop.

And when you fix that one, you're going to have to patch it again to explain why that patch shouldn't apply to a mini lathe/mill in a team's pit.

Plus there's enforcement issues, defining "work" on a robot, what about all those CSAs upgrading firmware and software with minimal team input...

Re: Ramps
 

I was assuming that they were simply removing the ramp, after having been inspected with it initially--no replacements of other stuff.

Al, I believe T9 covers the bolded portion: You can play with a subset of inspected mechanisms, without reinspection (assuming, of course, that no other rules would be violated). If Q&A is overriding that, then I think Q&A needs to be reminded about "Team Experience" (and maybe that reminder needs to be issued anyways).

Example (just to pick on my own team): 1197 has a ramp and tether. We are under the weight limit with the ramp aboard, and have passed inspection with it (on more than one occasion). Let's assume that we decide to play without the ramp for one match. What you seem to be saying--correct me if I'm wrong--is that we need to reinspect both for that one match AND for the following match where we carry the ramp again, even though the ramp previously passed inspection, and we are simply playing with a subset of inspected mechanisms for that one match. I say that T9 covers that situation, and states quite clearly that we can play without it for a match and add it back on for the next one without needing reinspection (provided no other changes are made that would require reinspection).

Re: Ramps
 

There is no difference between pre-fabricated "assemblies" and "parts". Either it is COTS, and it is not subject to the holdback, or it is "fabricated", and subject to the holdback. The holdback is specific to the team, and thus cannot be shared.

IMHO, there are 3 types of parts.
1) Bag of parts
2) Parts assembled into a component
3) Modified items

Bag of parts are COTS (as long as they can be easily purchased).
Modified items are Fabricated.

Then there is the bag of parts that are intended to be assembled. Gear boxes fall into this category. Q452 gets close to this (ok to make modifications as directed by the Manufacturer). When used as intended by the manufacturer, the part is still considered COTS. So, IMHO, an assembled gearbox is still COTS, as long as only the original parts are used. If you swap out gears, then it is no longer COTS. The blue box in R10 is also relevant. If the item is a "component" for BOM purposes, then I think it should also be COTS.

However, it doesn't take long to assemble a gearbox, and it is probably beneficial to the receiving team to have practice putting it together.

Re: Ramps
 

Rich,
There is but it depends on what part of the rules you discussing. Fabricated parts whether assembled or not, must fit into the 30 lb. withholding allowance if brought in by the team at load in. If a team makes parts at the event and gives these parts to another team to assemble (in this discussion, cut aluminum, pvc, lexan, etc.) and the receiving team then must build a mechanism from those parts, I believe that satisfies R1. The Team built it. Parts are not assemblies or mechanisms. Gracious Professionalism demands that we assist other teams whenever needed.
A bag of parts may or may not be COTS. If they are COTS they are not part of the withholding allowance. If they are assembled into a mechanism(s), then they are modified and are part of the withholding. If it is pre-cut parts for a particular assembly then it is not COTS. If it is just raw aluminum of random length and must still be cut to be used for an assembly than it is COTS material. Teams have been able to get under the 30 lbs, by leaving COTS parts unmodified, carrying them into the venue and assembling the remainder of the mechanism at the event which is legal.

Re: Ramps
 

Quoted from http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...135836&page=15
___________________________
Wow!...."Change is REALLY coming", in fact it is here all over again! (I'll remind some, that part of this years Game Reveal video was the FORMER FIRST FRC RULEBOOK being recycled ~actually thrown in the trash can or recycling can/bin)....Along with "NO Required Bumpers." (Yet many keep referring to previous years rules in arguments about the 2015 FRC Rules Interpretations).

We each, must take the things we like about that situation of "Change is Coming", and understand there will be changes we like, and changes we don't necessarily like. Games we like, and games we don't like as much necessarily. Rules we like, and rules we sometimes absolutely hate, usually because it does not fit our personal ideas of how we wish the game to be played, usually to our own personal design advantages.

I'm sry to have caused a crapstorm by asking a few honest questions about legality of play already completed w/ the existing 2015 ruleset a week ago, but, I'm not sorry with the actual ending results folks.

I spent the majority of my time since Game Release Day this year parsing the game (researching what it is that "the elite winning teams do differently", than most other teams (my youngest Son graduated and headed off to college last summer, and I have taken a break from hands on mentoring this year),...So, I read/watched a lot of 1114 & 254 Mentor input out there too!),...And spent a ton of time just thinking of what I personally would do, to build a robot that would contribute highly to a winning Alliance in Recycle rush. Then I went and watched the game actually played.

What I saw and then read here on CD, happening in Weeks 1~3 (were what appeared to be massive unintentional published rules violations IMO only, and I could only see that it was going to continue, and possibly get even worse as the season progressed), as wins were often the result. So, I asked a few very detailed questions in this thread.

It wasn't because I personally believed people or teams wanted to intentionally violate the "as published 2015 ruleset." It was IMO because FIRST FRC is a culture & has set traditions, the culture is to help themselves, and other teams WIN matches, titles, awards, and Championships and grow through the use of STEM together as a community, and change is also never easy for most people.

I am glad that, as of now, all teams that already played weeks 1~3, and those left to play Weeks 4~the last match at the Championships in 2015, will all be playing on the same level playing field now, due to the actual rule changes instituted by the rules jury (The GDC), today.

But, as Gee Two so eloquently put it in the other thread (& quoted above), that (I think), helped the jury (GDC), reconsider the existing ruleset, and the original "No, No, No Answer" to Karthik's 1114 Team Q & A 3 part Question(s) posed to the GDC in Q461. And, with the GDC taking into account the CD/FRC community input, the revised answer of now "Yes, Yes, Yes (With specific limitations)", seems to be fairer to all....Actually levels the playing field throughout all the gameplay.

My hat is off to all participants on CD, and the GDC and Frank.

Once the original Q & A Question(s) (Q461) were posed, I went about my daily work, checking in occasionally to see if it (they), was answered, got busy, and actually missed the original Q461 answers, and the resulting mess.

Tonight, I checked back in to CD (said WOW!), and had a lot of reading to catch up on (the balance of the RAMPS thread here), the previous GDC A461 & the revised A461 answers, the recent UPDATES today, and the entire thread at; http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=135836
then thought a lot, before posting this input.

Nobody can say that FIRST, Frank and The GDC do not take input from the FRC & CD communites as a whole. They certainly do! (The Jury spoke, they marched the condemned robots to the gallows, along the way, gears started grinding very loudly the closer to the gallows they got, and then all those grinding gears were greased heavily, and The Jury reconsidered & simply changed the 2015 rules to fit the very well & long fostered community culture & traditions in the FIRST FRC Community....The playing field was again leveled in 2015 for all.

Amazingly I find, some parties are still arguing about the (re-weigh/re-inspection), ruling (that has been the same year in/out lately, BTW), and those arguing "it is just a formality" are arguing (IMHO urinating), into the wind!....It is THE RULE, and is REQUIRED for many good reasons. Get over it. (Examples; You do not want to get caught unaware later overweight, do you?, Or, out of legal specs?...It could possibly invalidate all your matches that came before, or since that allowed robot change). That would not be good for anyone.

Like I said earlier...I like the changes made today (the rules are now more in line w/ the traditions and culture fostered greatly in the FIRST FRC Community), and wish all teams competing good luck!

3 major issues (major non-littering noodle agreements~solved before week 1, game pcs. both on/off field & robots touching them~solved before week 1, now major team contributions to other teams~solved after week 3), this year were solved by the GDC (w/ their very careful consideration, & much CD community input).

Let's hope no more serious ones are found in 2015. (Though, always thinking outside the box, will absolutely always do that to a community!)

Teams....Go have fun!

_____________________________________________
Everything I do or say here on CD (or elsewhere), represents only my personal opinions...Not any team whatsoever. The rules are what they are...work within them, or if you don't like them, work to get them changed (I can fully respect that).