![]() |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
Not enough coffee yet, I suppose. :] This is something I try to stress at every morning-meeting when I'm volunteer coordinating (or in some way managing an event - for 1923's hosted tournaments, I've got about 19 hats to wear). Think about how well Disney Cast Members are trained to make sure everyone 'has a magical day', and think about the last time someone gave YOU good customer service... now turn around and deliver the same to these kids. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
Now that I can get behind. It always best to express these things in a positive way. BTW Head Referee and Volunteer Coordinator are the 2 jobs that need the best people and are certainly the most difficult. I am not sure I would do either for love or money. ;) |
Q955 has just been posted clarifying rule Q953 https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org//Qu...t-violate-r9-c
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
Defense Apocalypse Cancelled |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
So by the logic that a robot "specifically designed or intended to interfere with another ROBOT'S sensing capabilities" is a violation of R9, what is to say that because we use a IMU, any robot that bumps us is also in violation of R9?
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
If they had put an unbalanced spinning mass with the exclusive intent to vibrate the field to disrupt your IMU, that would be a violation of R9. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
I have submitted another follow up to (hopefully) clear up any R9-A violations or other issues with defensive add-ons of all kinds (and cake varieties). Should have been a little more thorough in the first Q&A.
-matto- Edit: General advice to teams is to make sure that the team members talking to inspectors and referees are very clear and consistent in the messaging that any tall parts of the robot (whether added on during competition or not) are for blocking shots only. The fact that some teams chose to build low robots that cannot see or shoot or aim is inconsequential. On the note of visibility and R9-A, the GDC has been clear that lack of visibility was intentional (Team Update 16 says "Limited visibility for drivers was one of the intended challenges with this game ..."). Teams that chose to spend their time and resources improving their visibility can gain an advantage if they thought the problem through carefully and made good design choices. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
What's the record for the longest Q&A chain? Can this break it?
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
-Mike |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Here is Q955 for FYI...
This was also a discussion on our LRI call last night and there was a reasonable solution to cover us until Q955 answer came out. Q955 FRC Q&A Answered Questions Q: Please clarify Q953 - If a robot meets the sizing requirements for R3 and does not have any markings that are similar to the field (i.e. markings meant to mimic vision targets) does it violate R9-C? If so, could you please expand on the criteria for what violates R9-C? For example: does translucent plastic sheeting or bumper noodles at the maximum height that was added between Qualifications and Eliminations that to a reasonable observer is for the purposes of blocking shots violate R9-C? A: A device which is not specifically intended to interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, but merely happens to be in the way of that ROBOT sensing a desired object, while intended for other functions(such as blocking shots), would not be a violation of R9-C. (Asked by FRC1410 on 2016-03-22.) |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
I'm not sure if the Head Ref was involved prior, but from what I witnessed (I forget which round), a field-side RI noticed that 359's bumpers had zip-ties around the bumpers and notified the LRI. The LRI checked the robot on the field and had the drive team remove the zip-ties since these aren't considered a rigid fastening system and aren't part of the legal bumper cross-section. I was on the field next to your robot when the zip-ties were removed and it was clear that the front corners were not very rigidly attached. I'm not familiar with your bumper fastening system, but it seemed like something must have broken or loosened during a previous match and the zip ties were added as a temporary fix. The LRI allowed 359 to play that match and required that the bumpers be more rigidly attached for the next match, which is when you added the wood screws. Maybe during that same match the Head Ref also noticed them sagging and also gave you a "warning," or maybe the Head Ref had noticed them sagging after the fastening system loosened and that's what prompted the zip ties, but either way, this does seem like an appropriate application of G19-1 (and as far as I know, you weren't fouled or disabled, just asked to fix it for the next match). |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:32. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi