Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Team Update 2 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153578)

Steven Smith 13-01-2017 14:07

Re: Team Update 2
 
I think if you read for intent and not just wording at this point.... the GDC could have very easily have just said the rope is a standard field element. They probably would have liked to, but know that many climbers are going to damage the rope over time, which will lead to a lot of backlash, so they put the onus on teams to bring their own rope.

If the wording is ambiguous, they will continue to qualify the wording to meet the intent, or teams will just run the risk of designing around something that gets banned post bag/tag.

Yes, there are ways to solve the problem via rope design, but the intent is to solve it via robot design (acquire/climb). I really don't see an about-face on this direction, and I think the very few updates we've gotten so far have been consistent with my reading of the original intent. If they are going to argue that the 4" whipped end cannot be modified to make acquisition easier, ONLY to prevent fraying, I cannot see why they would say the rest of the rope can be modified to make acquisition easier (short of the approved knotting).

engunneer 13-01-2017 14:10

Re: Team Update 2
 
it's important to remember that the 4" end that has fraying prevention applied and the point that the rope length is measures to don't have to be the same thing. the rope anatomy diagram shows this clearly.

you can keep the end of your rope from fraying (using legal methods), and then tie that end of the rope into a knot or a loop, and that is NOT superfusion.

lukekaiser 13-01-2017 14:13

Re: Team Update 2
 
My question is couldn't someone just braid, mesh or tie a rope of less than 1 inch out of yarn that would be strong enough to support a robot, and still use the "hook Portion" of the Velcro on the robots spooling mechanism? I feel like that would be really easy to create, and still have the "Velcro" properties that everyone is trying to achieve.

efoote868 13-01-2017 14:14

Re: Team Update 2
 
Quote:

consist entirely of flexible, non-metallic fibers twisted, tied, woven, or braided together except for the last 4 in. (~10 cm) of any cut end (E) which may be whipped, (with material that is flexible and non-metallic) or fused only to prevent fraying.
So to anyone thinking that the hoops portion of Velcro is illegal, would a tow strap be legal?

ASD20 13-01-2017 14:26

Re: Team Update 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1630623)
So to anyone thinking that the hoops portion of Velcro is illegal, would a tow strap be legal?

See figure 9-1

FrankJ 13-01-2017 14:27

Re: Team Update 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1630623)
So to anyone thinking that the hoops portion of Velcro is illegal, would a tow strap be legal?

The tow strap would have to be less than 1" wide with the metal hooks removed.

BrianAtlanta 13-01-2017 14:50

Re: Team Update 2
 
Here's my $.02.

I "think" they don't want Velcro used, but the clarification seems to only apply to the modification to the rope to prevent fraying.

Quote:

Community members are innovative and
may discover a way to fuse the end of the ROPE in a way that can be
leveraged for competitive advantage. This “superfusion” extends the
fusing’s purpose beyond only preventing fraying.
So as it stands currently, if you have a strap of Velcro that satisfied the definition for rope, I think that would still be legal since you didn't modify it. I just expect that they'll address that in the next update. So be careful about betting on Velcro as rope.

SenorZ 13-01-2017 15:15

Re: Team Update 2
 
Once robotics becomes an exercise in linguistics and semantics, we've lost our way.

Instead of saying, "Hmmm, having my robot climb a rope is a challenge. Lets see if we can do that."

Teams are saying, "Hmmm, attaching to and climbing up Material X is easier than rope, and provides less of a challenge. Let's see if we can use Material X."

While there's nothing wrong with this, technically, it is not in the "spirit" of the challenge. As a teacher, I give game/challenge projects to my students. Every year I need to field a variety of "why can't I..." questions because they want to bend the challenge to meet their design preference. I know this is NOT the same thing as the "velcro controversy", but it has the same flavor.

Go to the rope section at Home Depot. If there is a spool of Velcro there, you have an argument.

efoote868 13-01-2017 15:21

Re: Team Update 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1630637)
The tow strap would have to be less than 1" wide with the metal hooks removed.

Then my question becomes, why would tow strap material be legal and the hoops portion of velcro not? The velcro loop is made up of fibers that are flexible, non metallic, and woven, same as the tow strap. In my opinion, neither would be categorized as rope in English, but both meet FIRST's definition in the rulebook.

engunneer 13-01-2017 15:31

Re: Team Update 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1630674)
Then my question becomes, why would tow strap material be legal and the hoops portion of velcro not? The velcro loop is made up of fibers that are flexible, non metallic, and woven, same as the tow strap. In my opinion, neither would be categorized as rope in English, but both meet FIRST's definition in the rulebook.

you just described the pro-velcro argument. Find a piece of velcro that meets these specs (no adhesives, completely made of fibers, woven, braided or twisted, size, etc.) and you have a legal component for your rope.

there are MANY examples of velcro that are not legal, but not because they are velcro.

nuclearnerd 13-01-2017 15:33

Re: Team Update 2
 
I'm going to stake a claim that hoop-side velcro strips will remain legal when all is said and done. We can keep lawyering the rules until you have a very fuzzy rope, and it would still work. It's just a *very* good solution to the problem. (Although the Ri3D 1.0 version still requires the drum to move. Lets see if we can improve that).

And I don't buy that lawyering the rules is outside the spirit of the game. This is a design challenge, with a very specific spec. If the "client" wanted something different, they'd put it in the spec.

And along those lines, if they wanted us to solve a specific rope climbing problem, they would have made the ropes a standardized game pieces and made us all use the same thing.

(sorry, this should probably go in the velcro thread)

wesbass23 13-01-2017 15:38

Re: Team Update 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorZ (Post 1630670)
Instead of saying, "Hmmm, having my robot climb a rope is a challenge. Lets see if we can do that."

Teams are saying, "Hmmm, attaching to and climbing up Material X is easier than rope, and provides less of a challenge. Let's see if we can use Material X."

Why work harder when you can work smarter, right?

Jon Stratis 13-01-2017 15:44

Re: Team Update 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorZ (Post 1630670)
Once robotics becomes an exercise in linguistics and semantics, we've lost our way.

Instead of saying, "Hmmm, having my robot climb a rope is a challenge. Lets see if we can do that."

Teams are saying, "Hmmm, attaching to and climbing up Material X is easier than rope, and provides less of a challenge. Let's see if we can use Material X."

While there's nothing wrong with this, technically, it is not in the "spirit" of the challenge. As a teacher, I give game/challenge projects to my students. Every year I need to field a variety of "why can't I..." questions because they want to bend the challenge to meet their design preference. I know this is NOT the same thing as the "velcro controversy", but it has the same flavor.

Go to the rope section at Home Depot. If there is a spool of Velcro there, you have an argument.

I would go the other way with it. As a professional engineer, requirements are everything. You design to requirements... and sometimes the requirements are ambiguous, or your understanding of those requirements doesn't match the understanding of the product owner. I always look for the easiest way to implement a set of requirements - it'll be quicker and more reliable than a complex way. Heck, just today at work I was having a discussion with a product owner that disagreed with my design, because my design included text that wrapped from one line to the next. There was nothing in the requirements that prevented that, and in the design I felt it gave the best presentation. So, now we're looking at alternative solutions as we work together to modify the requirements.

GreyingJay 13-01-2017 15:46

Re: Team Update 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorZ (Post 1630670)
Once robotics becomes an exercise in linguistics and semantics, we've lost our way.

Instead of saying, "Hmmm, having my robot climb a rope is a challenge. Lets see if we can do that."

While there's nothing wrong with this, technically, it is not in the "spirit" of the challenge.

While I would agree that there is a point of bending the rules too far, I think that encouraging students to think outside the box is very much in the spirit of an engineering challenge. A lot of good engineering comes from saying "but what if?" and challenging a conventional assumption.

I would never have thought of using Velcro if you had left me to my own devices.

KevinG 13-01-2017 16:09

Re: Team Update 2
 
Speaking only for myself, unless we get clarification I would rule as a RI that Velcro hook or loop tape meets the definition of a rope. I do not believe that my interpretation is the only one, and frankly that worries me.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi