![]() |
Team Update 15 (2016)
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Huge changes to the low bar fabric.
Very interesting. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I can't say I'm happy at all with the prospect of flaps of material that can now enter my robot and wrap around my rotating shooter wheels. The width mitigates that somewhat, and hopefully the vinyl is of the heavier variety that doesn't fold easily. I guess we'll see if it turns out to actually be an issue or not at the competition. We'll be refitting our competition field as soon as the prints come out.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
If bumper fabric really worked as well as I've heard it has, why not just use bumper fabric with red on the red side and blue on the blue side? Or is that too expensive/complicated for FIRST to add? IMO it would actually do more to lend itself to looking like defenses for an alliance that way.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
If the intent of the fabric is to prevent teams from bowling boulders through they should just get rid of it already and add all boulders entering the field must make contact with a robot before crossing the opponents outerworks.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I didn't hear of any major problems with the removal of the fabric and addition of a foul that many events implemented after issues week 1. Did I miss something?
The removal of the hanging bar makes it difficult if not impossible for many teams, including my own to keep the flaps out of the robot. Many teams designed around using the hanging bar to avoid snags and damage to mechanisms. Why couldn't the strips have been fastened to the bar on the bottom? Overall I'm happy and not surprised by the solution. Fortunately any teams that this causes issues for have plenty of time to change things before Champs. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Our robot was designed with explicit features to guide the embedded pipe across the top of the machine. Thinner flaps make that design decision obsolete and puts our robot at risk of damaging the new flaps or, worse, being damaged by them.
I can't fathom how FIRST believes cable ties will withstand the rigors of competition. The sallyport, already held together in parts using cable ties, fell apart regularly last weekend. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I have more concern about the zip ties. It will be interesting to see how long they last. I am also concerned that the zip ties will catch on robots.
Evidently there will be no pipe on the bottom of the vinyl strips so they should swing easier than the present configuration. I think that the pipe at the bottom was a major reason why the original design failed. The pipe would hold the fabric taught... and more easily penetrable. If the fabric could have moved easier... I think much of the damage would not have occurred although sharp objects would still grab the fabric. We shall see. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
This just seems like such a bad idea. There's so many low bar bots that went with an open middle and rails to guide the pipe over. Now they get to worry about their shooter or turret catching a flap and getting ripped from their robot.
EDIT: For example, 1114's bot. That wide over the bumper intake would probably fit two flaps inside. I'm sure they planned to have it down and running when they went through the low bar, but now they have to worry about it eating a flap. It just seems wrong to penalize teams that designed around the field in order to make things easier for teams with sharp pointy things that damaged the field. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I'm glad to see that FIRST decided to do something about the low bar fabric. It was rough at Lake Superior. We had our very own sweatshop on the side of the field cranking out new low bar covers as fast as poorly designed robots could rip them up.
I wish FIRST would've followed Lake Superior's lead and gone with colored flaps made out of bumper material (if the bumper material needs to be rugged enough for the game, you'd think the low bar flap material would be held to the same standard). A lot of this comes back to good inspecting as well. Robot Inspectors need to be on the lookout for anything that has even the slightest possibility of tearing the low bar fabric. I know I passed a robot that shredded a flap. I felt terrible. I walked the team back to their pit, and we came up with a solution that served it's purpose well for the rest of the event. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
In other news, hey quick exhaust valves are finally legal! Finally you can have the nice crisp pneumatic actuations you've always wanted.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
So the moral of the story is that if enough teams break the rules the rules will change.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Just when I thought competing this week couldn't get any more exciting. We get to be FIRST's ginuea pigs a second time.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I'm curious as to the durability of one continuous flap of vinyl vs. 5 separate flaps. The former option would certainly have been better for low bar teams, even if the hanging pipe had to go.
The top of your robot is the logical place to put cameras, LEDs, ball shooting mechanism cables, and other delicate things that teams generally want to protect (and in most cases, had planned to protect by ensuring the hanging pipe hit something else first). Maybe it won't be that bad, but I would not be surprised if someone were to be screwed by this over the weekend... It could be worse. They could be replacing the portcullis: ![]() |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
If this gets stuck in a robot is that not a field fault? We were not told to design around it.
Removing the flap and making sure boulders can only be brought over defenses by robots is the way to go. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Not sure how the referees are supposed to determine intent with regard to the human player. To my eyes, this is setting up unnecessary confrontations between drive teams and referees.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Okay, so if the flap solution somehow results in less permanently damaged low bars, HQ is presumably going to consider it a success, unless they're otherwise notified.
I'm assuming teams that end up eating flaps or have flaps break things are going to be less satisfied with this solution. How loudly are we going to complain and what are we going to ask for? Options would seem to be:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I'm a fan. FIRST iterates, and so should you.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
If they are going to hand out tech fouls for human player behavior, can they at least make it a rule?
Otherwise, as long as this new low bar doesn't impede teams that would be fine with the other one, it's a great change. But I'm concerned the little dangling strips will get stuck in robots that would never have damaged the cloth covering + pipe. I don't know why a tougher fabric + pipe solution was untenable. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Hmmm.. Q926 is still in a pending state, but the new R77g makes the answer obvious.
Add 3946 to the "side rails" club. We have tried to keep things tight enough to repel 10" boulders from our innards, but we may have to tighten up some more to repel 8" vinyl strips. Fortunately, we have some similar strips under the chassis workbench so we can do some testing this week. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
They should have spoken with the week 1 comps and seen what worked the best and gone with one of those. IMHO Lake Superior had the best solution and that is what should have been implemented. This seems like FIRST choosing something else because it was their idea and not someone elses. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
Our curtain is made of black 1000 Denier Cordura Plus bumper fabric at home, aka stuff that doesn't rip. I feel using that, along with holding teams more accountable for field damage, would have been a far superior solution. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
Forget those guys though. /sarcasm |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
If a HP bowled it just right, so that the boulder hopped at the berm and vaulted over the low bar (which we have done in practice), there would be no penalty.
If a HP bowled it just right, so that the boulder struck the corner of the low bar fabric and snuck under (which we have done in practice), there would be no penalty. Now, if the HP accidentally throws a bit too hard and it rolls through, instant foul. Because the field was faulty. Not cool. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
If teams end up eating the flaps, judging by CD threads in recent days, I don't think teams will have any problems complaining to the Refs, FTAs, LRIs, etc. about it....
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
I can understand being resigned to the necessity of seriously changing the obstacle, but there's really no way I can be a fan of it. Seeing it as a positive change suggests that the GDC should change game fundamentals more often as a way to keep teams on their toes or something. Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Timeout changes are still vague. Your robot can be staged on the field at the end of the time out and team members can still have their hands in the robot with 10 bolts still left to tighten.
I understand the intent, I know most people don't want to be the bad guy and say your robot can't play. But where do you draw the line? Timeouts stress volunteers out more than anybody else because its a long day that is just creeping along, and we are tired and we still need to breakdown the field and load it into a truck/trailer/pod. This game is hard on robots, time outs are going to be used a lot. Is there a better way? |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
A very significant parameter has been changed without giving teams proper, if any for those of us without practice bots, time to change their designs. As an engineering student, I have gone through significant classes about design in regards to proper client and manufacturer relations, and how issues like this are handled in the real world. I assure you this is not of the norm, and that professional engineers would agree. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
What I'm wondering is how effective the new low bar will be at stopping boulders. In theory, the fact that there isn't a heavy bar at the bottom could make a difference.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
I guess this stuff doesn't phase me anymore. The only constant is that FIRST changes their mind. If I can recommend anything, the best use of your limited resources is to adapt and move on. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I heard that there were a lot of teams who were basically shredding the fabric on the low bar so I'm glad that they fixed it, however, will this cause some complications to things on top of the robots??
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
My thoughts of 4mm thick heavy plastic strips getting raked over the inside of bot, swatting the cameras twice a cycle, are getting worse or worse. If they are stiff enough, they'll form a robot check valve out of the low bar. Once you are about halfway through and just one strip falls in the bot, you probably can't back out for any reason.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I'm not thrilled by this change but it was definitely necessary after this weekend including the removal of the bar. Something I noticed at GSD was the bar moving into positions that actually prevented teams from crossing through the defense. I'd rather have this than a jammed low bar.
We won't know what this new setup is like until we compete this weekend. Consider asking your FTA/field crew if you can test pushing your robot under the low bar to protect your robot and their field components from damage. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
The point is that this is NOT what happens in the real world. What's happened here is that the requirements have changed after the product was delivered, the customer isn't allowing us time to implement the changes, and the customer still expects their product to operate. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I was in charge of field reset for the Red Side of the field at Lake Superior, and using the bumper material instead of the black material was like night and day. I am struggling to understand why FIRST didn't go that route. Didn't anyone talk with people at the Regionals who came up with solutions on their own to see what worked and what didn't? To me, using bumper material is the quickest solution that won't affect team's performance. In addition, doing more thorough inspections will help a lot.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
The "black material" was Cordura. Cordura is also the bumper material recommended in the FRC manual. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Not a fan of the change. We have specific safeguard designed around the fabric and pipe, but do not have safeguards for 8" wide strips getting into our shooter, pneumatics or wiring. Also not a fan of having to spend yet more precious team money on the defenses and finding a way to safeguard our robot.
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
From an inspection standpoint, we looked for sharp edges, but did not fully realize the damage that would be done by square corners. IE, Things that have been approved many years, were causing punctures and tears. We did go back an work with teams to make their leading edges more friendly, and this helped greatly, but did not fully resolve the curtain issues. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
We built our low bar out of the field spec Cotton Duck Canvas (Cordura brand). It definitely is much softer and much more liable to get caught on and ripped. We have practiced on both, and have ripped the Duck Canvas but never the Cordura 1000D Nylon. I too am confused as to the reasoning behind not going with the more robust cloth method. It's possible they determined that even though 1000D holds up better, it still wont's survive an event. It's also possible that they could not source and fabricate enough flaps in time to get them to the fields (though I'm not sure why, there are Jo-Ann's everywhere). I'm curious to see what the ruling is going to be when the first flap gets caught in a drivetrain or an intake wheel and disables a robot. Is that a field fault, does it warrant a replay? I hope FIRST is discussing this scenario with the head referees, because many teams will be loading in tomorrow that didn't plan for and don't have quick fixes to make their robot able to handle the new design. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
My favorite "when I was an electrician" story is about a couple that had more money than common sense building a custom home. Lots of custom wiring (power, speakers, TV, etc.) to match their furniture. We went over the electrical plan with them (since they are paying by the outlet), walked through the shell to check all the outlets, walked through the rough wired shell to check all the outlets, walked through the wall board up (but not taped) house and checked one last time. And at finish time for good measure. All good, all signed off. (And we had done a nice job, no punch list) House closes, people move in, phone rings. "All the outlets are in the wrong place" "???? you signed off on every step" "We went out and bought new furniture and now it doesn't match. You need to come today and fix it, we are having a party in 2 days and it needs to be done by then!!!!" /sigh And to be honest, I feel bad about this change. From the Re: Removal of Low Bar Fabric thread Quote:
It's not like this is their first rodeo. Lets try to give just a little credit to the GDC. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
Sure, we'll have time on Thursday of our event, but we now have to take time away from other things because of this change. If this was the only way to make this work, or there were no indications a single-"panel" solution would hold, that would be one thing. However, there are several comments from people who used 1000D Cordura as replacements and had far better results. Honestly, I'd rather see the GDC just remove the flap completely than change it this much. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
There are really only two solutions to this issue and unfortunately the decision has been made to do something that is not one of them
1st solution... use a different fabric in the same configuration We all designed for fabric... with a pipe at the bottom. 2nd solution (which has already been implemented) is to remove the fabric and pipe altogether. I am not really sure what the purpose of now coming up with something completely different is. It will end up with different issues... I find it hard to believe that zip ties will not break in this iteration. I understand that we all need to adapt and be able to react etc etc.... blah blah blah real life... blah blah but FIRST needs to do that also... come up with a change which is neutral for teams.... I honestly don't think our design will be compromised but I saw several robots last weekend that this design could be trouble for. |
Has any one thought of the possibility of static charge/discharge ?
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
Rules Check: :( Oh well, even if we didn't have a circuit to run the generator, there's another idea that's run afoul of R9. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So who is going to suck a low bar flap into their shooter this weekend so we can get another rule change? |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Can I just go on the record as wishing FRC wasn't as annoying and frustrating as my day job can be?
|
Quote:
That one made me smile from ear to ear Gee!!! |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
I know its probably too late, but, crazy thought...
Kevlar is a fabric. Kevlar doesn't rip. I mean, you even need special scissors to cut the stuff. Why not kevlar? Expense and time, I suppose. Why not Zoidberg for that matter? (Its a lame meme reference, I know, but this thread felt like it needed it.) |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
As far as fabric goes, they should have used fabric with Twaron. We received some years ago from a sponsor and we did use it for bumpers. Mind you, it dulled our tin snips cutting it but it's really puncture proof. More here: http://www.warwickmills.com/Twaron.aspx
And for all of you who have a whole day at your next regional for the unbagging and flap mitigation time, you're ahead of us. We're going to our second district event which starts on Friday evening. And because we've been on top of things, not really expecting FIRST to give us a new design challenge, we have only two hours left of our unbagging time. We will have the practice and set-up time on Friday evening (5-10 pm), but we'd been really intent on using it for practice matches. Life is never dull! |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Anyone see a drawing for change yet?
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
As for the drawings question, I called FIRST about a half hour ago and the person who I spoke with did not know of any released drawings. She also did not know when the drawings would be released. Anyone have any more information?
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
That was a loooong weekend. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
When this update came out there was much lamenting on how teams would be hurt by this change.
Now that the dust has settled and all the pre-Championship events are done, whats the final analysis? In all the matches that I watched the flaps seemed to stop the rolling boulders. I didn't see any robots get hung up on the flaps (some interesting bounces off the supports around them). For your team was the change a big deal or just big drama? |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
I saw a few teams which were a lot closer to not fitting that had to stop and reset midway across, and occasionally they would get a flap caught somewhere that would probably not have happened with the solid fabric and bar. This increased their crossing time. I didn't see any total tortugas as a result of this, but I expect that there have been some, or would have been without robot mods. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Our robot was intentionally designed to avoid getting caught/catching on the original low bar design. We even included a step in our autonomous code to raise the the flap, so there would be no chance of it getting stuck in our robot. With the new flaps, this step of our autonomous code was useless. The new fabric itself presented no issues and our robot never got caught on it or damaged it. From my experience, I have never seen a robot get caught completely in the low bar due to the new fabric (that's not to say robots haven't got caught in the low bar due to other reasons).
The biggest issue that I noticed with the new low bar fabric was boulders getting stuck in the defense. This would mean that if we wanted to cross the low bar when a boulder was stuck in it, we would have rid the boulder from our robot first, causing us to spend a bit more time crossing the defense(or we could incur a foul). As well, occasionally, these boulders could interfere with our rhino treads as we crossed the defense. |
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Quote:
|
Re: Team Update 15 (2016)
Balls getting stuck in the flaps at the Indiana District Championships definitely messed up our alliance a few times. You can't drive though it with a ball (without getting a penalty) and it often jams up robots going from the courtyard to the neutral zone if the ball is stuck there.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:29. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi