light visibility
 

We know that the light has to be visible 99% of the time and the top 4 inches have to be visible, but can we fold over the light after the match has started so we can go underneath the bars at the sides of the fields? Or can we have the light sink into the robot as we go underneath the bar and have it reappea after we are under the bar. We understand that the light has to be mounder upright, but can we fold it over after we started or not? If so, do we have to fold it back up?

Any input greatly appreaciated.

To me this is rather vague, but I saw this\ on the forum.

Yes, FIRST was very clear that the light may be retracted when going under the bar but should be visible and exposed at all other times. They will allow a "reasonable" amount of time for the light to be retracted and extended. They indicated something on the order of 3-4 seconds, as 99% of 120 seconds would only give a little more than a second for the light to be inside the robot.

Another important thing to note, you can"t have the light come into contact with the bar. It has to move down before it touches the bar (so you can"t have it on a spring hinge where it will be pushed down by the bar).

If your bot has clear lexan sides, and the light can be 100% visable thru the lexan 100% of the time, FIRST wouldn't care that the light isn't on top of the bot....would they?

They're rather picky about things of that sort.. I wouldn't take any chances with that because you wouldn't want to have to remodel your robot right before a competition starts..

I still remember having to rip off a window motor at VCU last year because it was illegal..

On our 2002 robot we have our light mounted on a chunk of polycarb inside our robot... and our robot is encased in polycarb...


We got through all inspections with no problem whatsoever. The referees could see it fine.

Thats the bot I was thinking of when I was thinking of putting it inside this year...hehehe

Thanks!

Re: light visibility
 

Just a reminder, I think it says in the rulebook that the light has to be right side up, which means you can move it up and down but you can't turn it on its side.

Ask FIRST.

According to Update 5 the top 4" of the light must be "exposed".

I attempted to post a question on the FRC (Jive) group asking A) if having the light in a robot with transparent sides was acceptable and B) if it wasn't acceptable would the rule be enforced. Achieving the required exposure was basically going to put us back at square one in terms of frame design and I didn't want to redesign our frame for nothing.

The moderator declined to post my question, probably because of part B. However numerous other people have since suggested the same thing and been told NO. Transparent sides are not acceptable. Even a transparent protective cover is not acceptable.

Exposed means exactly what it says.

A moderator did respond to me personally and say that "any team that does not have it's light exposed will be assessed two minor penalties". As I recall three minor penalties = a DQ. So while you could technically compete, the slightest misbehavior on your part would result in a DQ.

As a team, we decided that in the interests of Gracious Professionalism and because complying with the rules is "the Right Thing To Do" that we would ensure that we met the requirement. We will not try and scrape by or just take our penalty and compete anyway.

We have resolved our issue by figuring out a very elegant retraction mechanism. It kept us from having to redesign our frame. I'm not sure if you can do the same or not, our mechanism depends on a feature of our robot I have not seen discussed here, so I'm keeping quite for now.

Since the response from FIRST was a private message, it was obviously not meant for public consumption. If it was they would have used the FRC group. So I will not post it here without getting clearance from FIRST. But I thought you all should be aware of the major points.

You should also be aware that last fall I volunteered to be a technical judge at one of the competitions. I won't tell you which one, but I will tell you that I will be packing a 6" scale.

Consider yourself warned on this issue....

I rechecked update #5 and could not find anything about the light that uses the word "exposed." Here is the exact wording:

"A momentary “loss” of visibility of this beacon is allowable; however, 99% of the time FIRST requires that the top 4” of the light be visible."

To me, this means exactly what it says. You need to be able to see the light. Am I missing something? Is there somewhere else that says "exposed?" If not, doesn't "visible" mean if you can see it, even through a transparent medium, it's visible?

What do you all think?

Lewis, http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...06f736564#2785

Yeah, on the FIRST forum, they have verified that you can lower and then raise your light while going under the bar, but having your light inside of a lexan covered robot isn't acceptable.... see the links here:


http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...t=90&trange=15

http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...65&trange=1 5



Of course, the same question that had been posted a couple of days earlier was answered with an 'you probably won't be able to get away with it.... the judges will probably make you change it, so have a plan to retrofit the light to a more acceptable position if you are instructed to do so at a competition...'

But the later posts most definitely say NO to having it inside of a clear robot..... in their words, "Exposed means exposed, not covered by a clear box."

<sigh>:(

Then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules.




Nowhere does it say the light must be "exposed". It only says "visible". In fact, only the top 4" must be visible at all times. Last year the components of our robot were rather low-profile, so the light was higher and was able to always be seen. If you can do this with your robot, then I'd say go for it.


It's hard to say, though. I haven't seen this year's light in action compared to last year's. Is this year's light brighter than the light last year? Any objective opinions/testing?

However, rules do change from year to year. I could be wrong, and FIRST could be "cracking down" on "illegal light usage". I, however, highly doubt they're going to pull out a scale marked to the hundredths of an inch, and measure your light visibility. FIRST has done stranger things though....

In the end, if a critical mechanism depends on the light not being on the top of your robot, I wouldn't risk it just in case FIRST makes up their minds. If you want to "test the water", then run your robot through a practice round with the light mounted visibly inside the robot, and ask the judges if they have any complaints/concerns.

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.

we are planning on leaving ours as is...but having some stuff ready in case they say we have to change it.but hopefully we wont have to.