Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Rule G25 states:

A ROBOT may not attempt to stop or impede the flow of the MATCH in any of the following ways:
A. intentionally tipping over
B. coordinating a blockade of the FIELD with ALLIANCE members
C. blocking GOAL(S) while in contact with its own BATTER using anything outside its FRAME PERIMETER

So could you intentionally tip the robot over without trying to impede the flow of the match?

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Why would you want to tip over? If you mean tipping over to block a goal or a defense, I would consider those to be impeding the flow of the match.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I was thinking about a way for a tall but thin robot to go under the low bar. I was just curious about this method.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I would THINK you would then have to then look at the 120 inch frame rule because there have been instances (last year I believe) where it was then considered to be changing configuration and then the height would be considered the "frame perimeter."

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Notice "stop or impede the flow of the MATCH". If it is intentional, and part of your strategy, then the judges may consider it ok. It may vary judge to judge, however. After tipping over, it may be difficult to get back up, which may limit it's functionality. You may want to look into G18, which limits the robot from extending 15in past its perimeter.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I was thinking the same thing. Using this method, you could theoretically get a robot taller than 1' 4" through under the low bar. I was thinking an "L" design with wheels on both sides. I could see perimeter stuff causing an issue though.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

You'd need retractable wheels to clear the bumpers. Also, even with some sort "training wheel" type device (within 15"), that would be an awful tippy robot being so narrow. Can be done, but IMHO this sounds like a bad life-alert commercial in the making ("Help, I can't get up!!!").

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

This has little to do with the rule, but please note the difference between judges and referees. It's an important distinction.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

You would also probably need bumpers running the height of your robot, so it would still meet the bumper rules when tipped over.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I think the "transportation configuration" rules of last season could hold precedent. Teams like 1114 and 1241 had transportation configurations that were not the same orientation on the field, yet were not penalized for size violations, because they could still fit into the box. However, sizing rules were very different last year. In 2013 and 2014, where the same frame perimeter rule was imposed, I don't recall there ever being an instance of the issue you describe, although there probably wasn't an instance where that issue could have occurred.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I believe the rule that may stop this is the "can't extend 15 inches past frame perimeter" rule.

You cannot change perimeter mid match so if you went from a skinny drive train to a long one you would exceed the 15 inch reach.

Thats how I would see it anyways. I may be wrong.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Those rules do not apply this year. Instead, parse these rules:

In my opinion the combination of these rules prevents any "flop bots".

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Last year's rules do not apply:

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I know you aren't supposed to disseminate the rules from pictures but...

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I find it hard to believe that a referee will allow a robot to have sideways bumpers in a match. I believe bumpers were intended to protect the world from the robot and the robot from the world. Having the bumpers sideways like that would be unsafe imo. You may not even pass inspection if you intend to do this as part of the robot design.
But if you have a way to move your bumpers down... that looks so complicated, it's probably not worth it though imo.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I think it COULD [Edit: NOT] be done, legally.

BUT, it's way way way too risky. You'd have to have two full sets of bumpers, one permanently mounted in each configuration. AND you'd have to be <120" perimeter in BOTH orientations. Not to mention having the ability to retract wheels for the start of the match. (And I'd use that within the match, too.)

An articulated Frame Perimeter is specifically banned.

It ain't worth it.

EDIT: I realized the problem here. The post-flop set has to be OUTSIDE the Frame Perimeter before the match, or the Frame Perimeter it's on is articulated. Either one of those is illegal.

Yep, illegal.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

That picture has virtually nothing to do with this discussion.

A) It's referring the maximum height of the robot.
B) It's in reference to the robot being on a flat floor or not, not the orientation of the robot.


Please be careful not to post non-relevant information in these threads regarding rules questions. While nobody should take CD's opinion as a ruling, we must be careful to avoid spreading false information.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

While I agree that this picture should be in no way an official ruling on anything, it was more to demonstrate the that whatever is considered the frame perimeter and extension changes with robot angle to the ground. If the top of that robot is 15" past it's own bumpers, then it would be illegal if considered an extension. Instead, it seems legal according to the rules, and that even a robot at an angle perpendicular to the ground satisfies the constraints. Thus to say that tipped robots might not contribute to extension size and perimeter limitations as mentioned earlier in the thread.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

A. intentionally tipping over

RI3D is intentionally tipping theirs over in the act of Scaling the Tower (more like an "L"), Tank Treads & Pullies out (like saying at the end of each match....Here you knave, now kiss the soles of my robot), in the attempt of blocking their opponents from scoring the win by Capturing the Tower and the points.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Which Ri3D team? I want to see this.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaGnaYYfiB8

The above addy gets you to the Ri3D youtube channel....Watch the Day 2 Stream 2 (or scan through until you see them gather around for the scaling test).....Of course they don't yet have any front or rear frame members on that AM Tank Drive or Bumpers on it yet so it is very hard to tell when it is hanging in the "L" position whether it is officially outside of the frame more than 15" or not. But they have it driving, collecting, shooting, and hanging. (The start of scaling test is around 2:52:10, full hang at 3:01 or so). That vid is 6 hrs. + long).

Hmmm, run that video out to the last 10 minutes and you will see the bot in shooter mode in front of the Defense Ramp (Either all the builders are midgets/dwarves, or that bot is well over the 4'-6" in height and would be illegal on field in this years game outside of the last 20 seconds of a match (no robot can exceed that height until then correct?)

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I remember the oddest robot that ever made it to Einstein was 1218 in 2004. To get up onto the platform it would lay down on ti's side and drag itself up onto the platform. You can see it start to do it in the first semifinal match.. FIRST was very different back then . No more two team alliances. No more wedge bots. And bumpers exist now so these bots wouldn't be as effective.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I believe it would be the Robot Inspectors that would have the problem, and not the Referees.

The second set of bumpers would be outside the bumper zone, and thus not "Bumpers". You would have to design it so that the 2nd set of bumpers were:
1) Entirely inside the Frame Perimeter; and
2) Within the 120# weight limit.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I believe this strategy would be in conflict with 1.1 Message from Woodie Flowers Award Recipients.

"We want to know they are playing with integrity and not using strategies based on questionable behaviors."

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I have to add to this discussion that your robot has to satisfy all rules not just certain rules. What comes to mind are those rules and definitions that discuss bumper zone, FRAME PERIMETER and dimensions, bumper mounting (covering all exterior vertices) and articulation. Depending on dimensions, I can see the possibility of changes in aperture that can still satisfy the rules.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

The rule that picture is related to has nothing to do with the frame perimeter or extensions beyond it. It ONLY has to do with maximum robot height.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

R22 says: BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained between two virtual horizontal planes, 4 in. above the floor and 12 in. above the floor, in reference to
the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor.

What defines "normally"? Starting configuration? Average position during the match? Where the robot lands if you were to pick it up and set it down again? Waived in the last 20s?

On a similar note, do the frame perimeter extension rules (R3, Fig. 4.2) rotate with the frame? If so, it would (awkwardly) prevent teams from going vertical while extending an arm to the rung (even if the height rules are waived).

Clarifying how these rules affect orientation changes will have a huge effect on teams attempt to scale the tower.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Usually when robots tip over [unintentionally] they aren't fouled for changing their orientation on the field, or having "sideways bumpers." just something to consider.

R22: BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained between two virtual horizontal planes, 4 in. above the floor and 12 in. above the floor, in reference to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor. BUMPERS do not have to be parallel to the floor.

This shown, I believe you can have sideways bumpers, as they do not have to be parallel with the ground; there are no rules stating that tipping changes any configuration of the robot. There is also no limit on horizontal extensions, so you can put wheels on that flick outside of the frame perimeter up to 15 inches, which you can fall onto. (Careful with those measurements though, as you still want to go under the lowbar)
I believe this is legal.

[edit: Also, remember that "normally on a flat floor" is simply how your bot sat during inspection, as "R" rules are primarily guaged as inspection rules. That being said, "normally" is in starting configuration, and also the bumper zone is applied to your robot in starting configuration. Your bumpers do not need to fall within the bumper zone after tipping. Literally speaking, there isn't even a penalty for violating R22 on the field.]

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Hmmm, so what would happen if a robot raised it's ground clearance during a match, such that the bumpers exited the bumper zone? This would pass the "starting configuration" test, but would not pass "when you put the robot on the ground" test.

[Edit: because this: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...readid=141442]

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

R23. Bumpers aren't allowed to articulate as Eric mentioned. Just wanted to cite the rule.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Emphasis mine

When the robot "flops" the BUMPER ZONE does not change due to orientation of the robot (r22). Thus the FRAME PERIMETER does not change due to orientation change.

As long as you can extend wheels to the 'flopped' side (and keep it within the 15" extension rules) flopping looks legal to me.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

Guys,
The intention is that any robot to robot contact occur only within the bumper zone to prevent damage to robots. The bumper zone is tested and evaluated when the robot wheels are on a level surface and bumpers may not be articulated (i.e. moving). If the robot changes robot frame to floor dimensions, I would expect the Q&A would respond that the bumper zone still has to be satisfied. As ruled in the past, if the bumpers are angled, they still had to satisfy the bumper zone requirement. That allows bumpers to be mounted higher on one side of the robot and lower on another side.
While the 2016 bumper rules are very close to those in the past, the only real answer can be obtained from the Q&A.

Re: Robot intentionally tipping over
 

I agree, and I think that the simplest answer they could give would be changing "when the robot is standing normally on the floor" in R22 to "until the robot is scaling the tower" That would clean up a lot of this "creative thinking."

That being said, I think creative thinking is awesome, and it'd be totally cool if they allowed it. I want to see robots do the limbo.