M8 and the definition of "upright"...
 

To my mind, FIRST has never really defined "upright" very well either.

Is it upright when it is in the box or when it is driving round -- the Beatty machine comes to mind. If they mount it upright in starting position, it would only be upright for 5 seconds because after that it would be on its side!

Why is upright even in there?

If it is at a slight angle (say the axis of rotation of the motor +/- 2 degrees from true vertical) is that Okay? What if it was +/- 20 degrees?

Questions Questions.

Joe J.

Now, I really love FIRST and what we do, but this is what drives me crazy. What's so hard about saying "exposed" if you mean "exposed," "visible" if you mean "visible." At this stage of the buildtime, you can't scrap your whole design plan and start over because the rulemakers at FIRST don't know how to use a dictionary. Please pardon my tone, but you all know how much we invest in this and how many people are affected by such vagaries. In my most humble opinion, such ambiguity is neither gracious nor professional. While I'm ranting, if there is a rules clarification with such potentially huge design impact made on the FIRST forums, I believe that it should be published in terms unambiguous as possible ASAP in a team update rather than remaining buried in the myriad posts that are sometimes tedious to follow. Team update #5 did not do this.

Sorry for the steam. I'm taking deep breaths.

From what I"ve seen, this year"s light looks a bit dimmer than last year"s. I don"t have last year"s close by, so I can"t confirm this, but the new light looks dimmer, studier, and is a good deal quiter.

Hear hear....
 

Lewis & like minded folk...

...I agree with you fully. This has really gotten silly and sad.

Now we learn that upright means upright ALWAYS (except for going under the bar). This is a major new rule. One of last year's Champion (Beatty/Hammond --- oh yeah, Pepsi sponsored them too ;-) would be totally illegal as would any robot that does not remain itself upright during the match (I suppose a legalist may even argue that unless special precautions are taken, any robot climbing the ramp would not have its rotating light "upright" and would be illegal).

We are almost to WEEK 4 of a 6 week process. To require teams to make such a change at such a date is bad form. And to suggest that teams should have so called alternate mountings in case the one we designed in from the start is ruled beyond the pale is ...well... ...beyond the pale.

To make such new interpretations of rules that have been essentially unchanged from prior years without making much more noise about them is not right.

I call for a CLEAR and reasonable light rule. How about this:

1)
The light must be oriented in such a manner that it is expected to have its base pointing downward the majority of the match (more than 60 seconds).

2)
The light must be clearly visible from at least 7 of 8 "octants" (octant = a generalization of "quadrant", specifically, a 45 degree wide sector of a horizonal plane with its center on an theortical vertical line through the center of the bulb) for any horizontal plane higher than 2 feet off the ground.

3)
For brief periods of time (for example going under the bar, moving an elevator mechanism to lift a crate, etc.), the light may be partial obscured without violiating the spirit or letter of this rule -- which is to ensure that the audience can easily (and at almost every instant) determine the color designation of each and every robot on the field.

This seems to me like a rule everyone can live with.

As always, your thought are welcome.

Joe J.

Is the rounded half of the light labled anywhere as the top and the flat end ever labled as the bottom?;) -- Just a little thought.

Improved wording...
 

I realized that my second requirement for a light rule was not sufficient to define things fully.

I propose the following rule for comments:

1)
The light must be oriented in such a manner that it is expected to have its base pointing downward the majority of the match (more than 60 seconds).

2)
For any horizontal plane higher than 2 ft, draw a circle 20 feet in diameter and centered about the point where a vertical line through the center of the bulb intersects the plane. The light must be clearly visible from at least at least 300 degrees around the circle and it must have no single "blind spot" larger than 45 degrees.

3)
For brief periods of time (for example going under the bar, moving an elevator mechanism to lift a crate, etc.), the light may be partial obscured without violiating the spirit or letter of this rule -- which is to ensure that the audience can easily (and at almost every instant) determine the color designation of each and every robot on the field.

hmm, what if the light, for the first 3 seconds(and in the "measuring box", were sideways but remained upright for the remaining portion of the match(1:57), would this be legal or would the light HAVE to be able to swivel to pass inspection..it doesnt seem that this has been looked at by first, but getting it under the bar has

60 seconds is a majority...
 

I think that it should not matter what orientation your light is in in the box or at the start of the match.

The thing is that you should meet the visibility criteria (essentially always) and the base down most of the match.

That would be enough for me.

Joe J.

I like your wording Dr Joe. It is probably too late this year to enforce it, though I believe our robot complies. It even has a measurable criteria to make it easier to enforce.

In an earlier post I said the Light had to be "exposed". It was rightly pointed out that that word is not used in the rules. It was however, used in some of the responses from FIRST on the FRC group. I have been given to understand that these responses are to be regarded as "official" interpretations of the rule and that unlike last year (when if it wasn't in the Rules it was ignored) they are to be taken seriously.

In my question, which they declined to post, I pointedly asked that some codification be incorporated into the Rules through an official update. They basically said the "interpretations" on the FRC group ARE official and there was no need to do so. I hope they change their minds on that, the no need part that is.

When they say visible, it's rather vague. If you can see the color, I don't see why they should need to see the entire light. It's pointless...

*jeremy

Let me echo what you have said, Chris. The team updates have in the past been the final word on substantial additions, changes or clarifications to the original rules. The forum in the past has been the place where Q&A happens, and seems to generate material for the updates. In my observations, in the forum sometimes questions are misunderstood and answered one way, then reasked and answered the opposite way. Knowing this, it makes it difficult to proceed with, say, a major design or manufacturing plan on the basis of an answer given in the forum. When the update comes out, one would hope to be able to have a greater level of confidence in the permanence of the ruling. If what you are saying is true, we will all need to sit by our computers watching the forum responses as they come out (and there is no particular schedule for this as there is for the updates), making sure we don't miss some important point. I don't know about you, but we're pretty busy here trying to build a robot.

Just wondering. Where you read this??? Was our slight plan

Justin.

I asked first on the jive site about light visibility and light touching the bar. The response was that the light cannot touch the bar, but it can be flipped, turned, shoot into space for all they care as long it is back ontop of the robot after the bar is cleared and does not touch the bottom bar.

The link friends:
http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...3432&q=#343 2

:yikes:

In our design, we stuck the light on the top of an arm mechanism that uses a pivot action to move up and down. This means the light will vary between +\- 30 degrees depending on the position of this arm. This is actually the most visible spot for it, because you can see the entire light from 360 degrees around...From what I read and what I want to understand, this is legal becuase the light is pointing downward to most of an extent (I consider it to move past downward at 45 degrees) and there is an unobstructed view of it.

Which brings to mind...we tested the light and does it seem weak to anyone else? Last years was a lot brighter compared to this years...

So does the word "exposed" occur in any manual or team update? or is it just the forums where people have coined the term?

B/c if it's visible in the manual, and visible in the updates, in our robot it's gonna be visible.