Is this legal
 

[IMG]http://www.chiefdelphi.com/pics/bin/110894473256.jpg[/IMG]


I thought you were not allowed to have angled bumpers. Or am I mistaken? Can someone please clarify.

Re: Is this legal
 

that is there base...i dont think they consider them "bumpers"

Re: Is this legal
 

Whos gonna say that using picture frames for a chassis is eligit?

Re: Is this legal
 

Pretty sure it's their base as well - check out the section on bumpers:

<R30>
In order to help reduce the impact forces that the robot will experience during collisions with other robots, teams may add external "bumpers” to the robot. If used, bumpers must satisfy the following constraints:
• Bumpers may extend outside the normal robot starting dimensions (in the horizontal plane) up to 4" per side
• Bumpers must be located in a region from 2” to 8” above the playing field surface.
• Bumpers must not cause the weight of the robot to exceed the weight limit.
• Bumpers must be removable in order to allow the robot starting size to be easily measured during robot inspection.
• Bumpers must be designed to remain attached to the robot for the duration of the match.
• Bumpers and any bumper mounts that extend beyond the robot starting size may not contain “hard” materials such as metal, wood, or hard plastics. The definition of “hard” is one of common sense (i.e., if you can punch it and not hurt your bare hand, it is ok).

It definitely doesn't satisfy the requirements in red.

PS: There's nothing in the section about the (il)legality of 'angeled bumpers'; where do you get that from?

Re: Is this legal
 

Based on other pics of their bot i'm sure this is just part of their base design as well.

It would also not fit the rule portion - "Bumpers must be located in a region from 2” to 8” above the playing field surface." that Katie had mentioned, but hadn't put in red.

Re: Is this legal
 

Before everyone goes and cried foul, let me point out that the robot in question has no bumpers! The bumper rule only applies to bumpers that extend outside of the 28" by 38" rectangle.


Besides, where's the gracious professionalism in tattling on other teams?

Re: Is this legal
 

I'd be careful as that may be construed as an aggresive design feature, esp. if you can get underneath other robots with it. Possible DQ.


As above mentioned by several others, it does not appear to conform to Bumper rules regarding ease of removal and hieght off ground as well as materials of construction.

Remember it counts towards the weight limit.

Re: Is this legal
 

I know of many teams that have employed wedge shapes into their chasis design and have not seen them get dq'd. On my old team for 3 years we employed angles of some sort onto our chasis as well as riding low to the ground. We never were dq'd for it.

Re: Is this legal
 

It's just a thought. Just be careful not to get under other robots for any period of time.

Re: Is this legal
 

Nothing wrong with the robot in that picture, as long as the robot fits within the box.

Re: Is this legal
 

I don't see anythign wrong with the robot itself in that picture. However, I do see potentially illegal strategy with such a low-riding wedge. From the manual:


<G25> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, Triple Play is a highly interactive contact game. Some tipping, entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, entanglement, or damage occurs where it is not a part of normal game play, at the referee’s discretion, the offending team/ROBOT may be disqualified from that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team/ROBOT being disqualified from the remainder of the Regional or Championship competition. Examples of normal game play interaction include:

• Pushing low on another ROBOT.
• Blocking or pushing on a TETRA that is in possession of an opposing ROBOT.
• Establishing ROBOT position to block access to a GOAL by an opposing ROBOT.
• Using an arm or gripper to prevent an opposing ROBOT from placing a TETRA on a GOAL.

Examples of inappropriate robot interaction include:

• Pushing high on a robot and tipping it over.
• Using an arm or gripper to repeatedly strike an opposing ROBOT that is not in the process of placing a TETRA on a GOAL.
• Placing any part of your ROBOT under an opposing ROBOT, and then lifting to flip it over.
• Using an arm and gripper to pull a ROBOT by grabbing electrical cables, hoses, etc. or disabling a ROBOT by tearing out wires or hoses.
• Grasping or attaching to a TETRA that is in the possession of an opposing ROBOT, and using it to pull over the opposing ROBOT.
• Ramming another ROBOT at high speed.

(emphasis mine)

By the letter of the law, I don't see anything wrong with the robot design itself. However, if in competition due to the wedge shape, the robot ends up tipping other robots by driving into them, I would be inclined to throw some flags. If it's clear the sole intention of the wedge was to tip other robots, I'd call it illegal under the "placing any part of your robot under an opposing robot, and then lifting to flip it over" clause of <G25>.

Re: Is this legal
 

Our robot has wedge shaped sides as a solely defensive purpose. Our aim is NOT to go out and flip other robots around, and we dont plan on doing that. They are not bumpers, they are part of the base itself. I appreciate everyones concern, but believe me, we have thought this through, and know this is going to be a very effective design feature.

Re: Is this legal
 

i think it is legal but im not sure

Re: Is this legal
 

Well then it's a good thing the people above you took the time to get the rulebook and answer then, huh? (May I refer you to Andy Baker's "Please stop posting needless stuff" post)

And Marc, while wedges can be used maliciously, the majority of the time they aren't.

If team 11 is sitting still trying to cap a goal and team xxx comes blasting down the field and hits them at 10 fps and flips themselves--well now that's their own stupid fault isn't it?

There are many instances over the last few years where wedges have been employed within the rules to great success.

Re: Is this illegal
 

illegal


i'd say that is illegal for two reasons: one that bumpers must be 2"-8" off the ground. as well as the materials are hard and not allowed. read whats in bold.

Re: Is this legal
 

It's not a bumper That is their frame. Bumper rules have absolutely no effect on the frame of the robot.

There is only one possible way it could be deemed illegal-If they start using it to tip robots, or if it is larger than the maximum dimensions.

What that means is that we can stop saying "iit's illegal!" "No, it's legal!" back and forth and leave it for the refs to figure out on the field.

Re: Is this legal
 

ok i'll give you that. if its used to ram its illegal. if its a bumper, its illegal. all other cases its legal.

Re: Is this illegal
 

Read the posts above. These are not bumpers. A bumper is a device that extends beyond the normal "box" and is designed to lessen the force of impact through cushioning. True bumpers have basically not been seen since 2000 when they were introduced. There may be some robots I've missed that used them but probably not many.

It seems to me that there are two reasons for non-use of this rule provision. First, they are part of your total weight. This is the first year since then that we have had enough weight budget remaining that we could consider them. Second, they must be removable yet may not contain any "hard" material. So there is nothing inside to grab onto and make sure they stay attached. We prefer not to waste good weight carrying around something that will fall off at the first good hit.

If it is part of your frame or even just fits within the "box", it does not have to meet the "hardness" test. These are within the box.

Re: Is this legal
 

Having seen all the controversy that wedge shape robots have caused in the past, I would certainly stay away from that design. Even if their purpose is strictly defensive, it is possible for them to accidental flip over a robot, and be DQ'ed. If a Ref see forward motion that he feels caused a robot to flip, he will call for a DQ. Remember all the flips that were part of "Stack Attack".

It is not worth the risk!

Re: Is this legal
 

The robot in question is all legal suppossing the demensions are acceptable for judging. Also note that where the design might not be illegal, it certainly has the ability to aim for a great illegal strategy during the game. I say this will be an interesting robot to look for at a competiton and how well it does. The legality of this design relies soley on the operators now as those who the members who actually implement the strategy. About the stack attack, that could be easily avoidable, in our case we ran a bi-directional design and our whole game was offensive as it didn't matter if we flipped, we ran either way. But thinking of a good way to avoid a malicious wedge this year will be pretty tough, and since ship date was passed, well the wedge may be used illegally at some competitons but is a favored design as it offers alot of protection from robots trying to stop an addition of points. Although, in my hopes I don't think that blocking will be much on the ground this season, alot of good arms with great reach and I think will play a good role when it comes to blocking scoring, they are really affective at block.!!

Re: Is this legal
 

Bob92 (& other critics),

While I am sure you meant no harm and simply wished to gain clarification of the rules, in the future please try to do so without pointing fingers at any specific team (either directly or indirectly).

This type of thread is exactly the reason why many veteran teams no longer post pictures of their robots on this site. Over the last few years numerous teams have been attacked, and basically put on trial, after simply attempting to share the results of their hard work. Please keep in mind that every team puts an enormous amount of time and effort into their design, and when they post it here it is because they are proud of their results and wish to share them with you. This sharing is one of the great things about FIRST, and one you would be hard pressed to find in any other competitive environment.

I, for one, look forward to seeing the innovative approaches and unique designs that teams share here each year. Let’s not stifle that by creating an environment where people are hesitant to post their most creative ideas because they are afraid of the fallout.

By the way 11 – Nice chassis, if you have a good arm to go with that you’ll be a tough team to stop!

Re: Is this legal
 

thats a great design, and it should be recognized as a job well done. Its strategic to have wedge shaped edges. driving forward, isn't in the G25 ruling, lifting up is. so, its not illegal to flip robots unless they LIFT UP and flip it. so, nice move 11. I like it

Re: Is this legal
 

Sorry, but that's just not accurate. Here's what <G25> says:

<G25> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, Triple Play is a highly interactive contact game. Some tipping, entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, entanglement, or damage occurs where it is not a part of normal game play, at the referee’s discretion, the offending team/ROBOT may be disqualified from that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team/ROBOT being disqualified from the remainder of the Regional or Championship competition.

Examples of normal game play interaction include:

• Pushing low on another ROBOT.

• Blocking or pushing on a TETRA that is in possession of an opposing ROBOT.

• Establishing ROBOT position to block access to a GOAL by an opposing ROBOT.

• Using an arm or gripper to prevent an opposing ROBOT from placing a TETRA on a GOAL.

Examples of inappropriate robot interaction include:

• Pushing high on a robot and tipping it over.

• Using an arm or gripper to repeatedly strike an opposing ROBOT that is not in the process of placing a TETRA on a GOAL.

• Placing any part of your ROBOT under an opposing ROBOT, and then lifting to flip it over.

• Using an arm and gripper to pull a ROBOT by grabbing electrical cables, hoses, etc. or disabling a ROBOT by tearing out wires or hoses.

• Grasping or attaching to a TETRA that is in the possession of an opposing ROBOT, and using it to pull over the opposing ROBOT.

• Ramming another ROBOT at high speed.

It is therefore illegal to employ a strategy aimed solely at "destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement" of robots; if that strategy takes the form of pushing with a wedge-shaped structure, in any direction, disqualification may result. Even though a "push-and-flip" manoeuvre is not listed in the examples, it can still be considered an illegal strategy, if the referee makes a determination that the aim of the strategy was consistent with one of the banned motives.

Using the wedge as a deterrent would probably be allowed--if no actual flipping (etc.) occurs, it's difficult for the referee to firmly determine the aim of the strategy. If 11 uses their wedge in this manner, I doubt they'll have any issues.

Chasing robots around with a wedge, claiming, "I was only pushing horizontally" will not fly. In all probability, you would be disqualified, mercilessly, because the referee will decide that the strategy employed was illegal, per <G25> (aimed solely at "tipping over", for instance).

A more interesting scenario would take place if a team tried to deliberately upend its own robot, using 11's wedge, for the purpose of getting 11 disqualified. This is itself a disqualifying offence, for the same reasons as above. (Yes, it's not a nice thing to do. That doesn't mean that stupid ideas like this don't get tried, occasionally.) The referee would have to be watching very carefully to figure out what was indeed going on--who pushed who, who's acting passively, who's the aggressor, etc.. Now, I think that as a practical matter, the onus would be placed on 11 to justify the existence of the wedge; it is awfully hard to be certain if a team was trying to flip itself, and absent that proof, the referee might want to take the obvious route, and disqualify 11, whether or not they actually broke a rule. To avoid this situation, the referee must be responsible for being very, very sure of their call--it is better to let it pass, and make no disqualification, than to disqualify the wrong team, because of unclear and fast-paced gameplay.

Re: Is this legal
 

I am going to put my foot down and say that it is definitely illegal. Above it was mentioned that it is ok if used as a deterrent. So, logically, I will attach a 50 inch saw blade to my bot, claim it was a deterrent and not be disqualified? "Oh, that blade...well...its just a DECORATION!?". If I get in a match with a bot that looks like that, I will petition the referee to dq them. Even though it probably was not intentional to make it a wedge that can flip , it can be employed to entangle a robot and will make it impossible to block them without having their robot wedged under your bot. It doesn't get any clearer than that. If a bot tries to block that bot, and its motor wheels get elevated off the ground because it ran up the wedge, then it is a clear violation of <G25>Section 4-The Game(Namely, entanglement). Entanglement is defined as preventing movement. If my robot can't move, it is entangled. Even though the non-wedge bot ran into the other bot, it was because of the wedge that the robot got entangled. BUT in a later satement that appends to the above stated rule, it states that entanglement is also part of normal gameplay. A ref would have to prove that the wedge was intentionally used to entangle another bot. I believe that any ref will say that it was intentionally used to entangle bots. Pushing low on a robot is ok, but pushing under(as this robot will most likely do) is not. It is an excellent defensive idea, but it is not in the spirit of FIRST and shouldn't be allowed to play. My philosophy is if it is questionable then don't do it.

Re: Is this legal
 

Do you know what entanglement means? I'm not sure that you do.

If I block your robot into the corner of the playing field with mine, you can't move. You are not, however, "entangled" with my robot. Entangled would be if you had a net on your bot and my arm gets stuck in it.

To be entangled, your robot has to not be able to break contact with the other robot. if you run into a wedgebot and get stuck on it, it can back up and you'd no longer be physically stuck to it. if you were entangled with it, the wedge bot would back up and you would still be stuck to it, and dragged with it.

Your example of a saw blade is completely irrelevant. Nobody will question that a saw blade is against the spirit of the game, not to mention a violation of every safety rule that exists. A wedge used in a defensive capability is a fantastic strategy. if Wildstang hadn't had their wedge in 2003 would they have been National Champions? Heck no!

As I said before, if a wedge bot is sitting still and another robot drives into it and flips itself or gets stuck, TOO BAD. YOU chose to drive into it.

Absolutely no ref will DQ this bot in a situation that I just described. In fact, you'll find it's a LOT harder than you think to get a DQ for tipping. Robots tip over all the time in very questionable situations--many where it seems obvious they were intentionally tipped, and nothing is called.

Petition all you want, it won't get you anywhere.

And finally, if another "it's illegal" "no it's legal" comment is posted in here, this thread will be closed. This horse has been beaten to death, and then trampled on and beaten again. There are multiple threads about tipping robots and other violations including wedges. If you want to continue discussion there, feel free. Otherwise you guys can stop cutting down Team 11's work.

$0.02

Cory

Re: Is this legal
 

EDITI was going to post what Cory said, but he beat me to it.

BTW, Don't you think that calling out another team and saying "their robot is illegal!", especially this close to the ship date, goes a little against gracious professionalism? Now that many teams are posting robot pictures, I've seen this happen in several threads, and in most cases, the robot in question was violating no actual rules. At least if you are going to call out another team, find a specific rule to cite.

Re: Is this legal
 

I just want to clarify some things. The robot is legal in the sense that it is not using the wedge to flip any bot. The wedge is not a bumper, it is part of the body. Cory up there is just searching for technicalities in the rules. What is the difference between using a net to entangle the arm(citing your example) and using a wedgebot to lift a robot off its motor wheels? In both cases, you are taking away some form of control over your bot; whether it be arm control or control of movement. Pinning a robot in a corner is legal because it is BLOCKING. Apparently the line between blocking and entrapping is blurred to you. And threatening to close the forum. Now that is just childish and cowardly. Just because the forum isn't going your way, you are going to close the forum. Professionalism isn't finding grey areas in the rules and exploiting them.

Re: Is this legal
 

I am going to take my own signature and stop arguing over the internet. I will leave it alone at this. A wedge shaped bot is a gray area. Blocking(As defined in the rule book) is defined as inhibiting movement while in the interaction of one or more field elements. Even at that, you can pin for 10 seconds and have to move 3 feet away. A wedge shaped robot is not blocking when it slides under and elevate the only pair of motor wheels. The robot is inhibiting movement, but the bot might not be in interaction with field elements. Take it for its face value and don't interpret it as a robot could be a field element. The wedge bot has the potential to inhibit movement without the interaction of a field element. Thus this is called entrapment. According to the rule book, if you inhibit movement without the inhibited bot touching a field element, you are given a 10-point penalty. If the rule continues to be violated, multiple 10 point penalties will be thrown and not a DQ. The wedgebot has the same ammount of potential to be legal as it does to conduct illegal activity. The refs should watch the movements of a wedgebot or any other bot carefully to ensure fair play.

See Section 4- The game Page 9/10 <G21> for further information.

Re: Is this legal
 

You know, that saw blade brings up a good point; even though something is mean-looking, it isn't necessarily illegal. (A standard saw blade, of course, would fail inspection, and even if by some circumstance it appeared on the field, the referee would immediately declare it unsafe and prohibit it.) If it (legally) strikes fear into the hearts of the opposition, so much the better: that is a good deterrent.

There is, however, no rule against wedges--<G25> stipulates that the strategy, and not the mechanism, is potentially illegal.

Regarding <G21>, and amateurrobotguy's comments:

<G21> A ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with one or more field elements) for more than 10 seconds. If a ROBOT has been pinned for 10 seconds, the team with the pinning ROBOT will be told by the referee to release the pinned ROBOT and back away approximately 3 feet. Once the pinning ROBOT has backed off by 3 feet, it may again attempt to pin its opponent and, if successful, the 10 second count starts over. If a referee determines this rule to be violated, a 10-point penalty flag will be thrown for each violation.

I believe that "entrapment" and "blocking" are neologisms in the FIRST vocabulary--there are no such definitions in the rules. <G21> specifically requires contact with a field element for pinning; there exists no alternate case in which such contact does not exist, and therefore, there are no such penalties. However, the suggestion that "[t]he refs should watch the movements of a wedgebot or any other bot carefully to ensure fair play" is entirely reasonable--this is their responsibility.

Re: Is this legal
 

Wedge strategies are effective if used as defense. In 2003, we used a wedge on each end of our robot for defense only. How many teams drove up on the wedge and tipped, even on the ramp? Not many. This year, we have wedges on our robot for stabilization purposes first and defense second. If someone drives up on us and tips, that's not our problem.

That said, I think that team 11's frame is perfectly legal if used for defense. And, it sure looks cool!

Re: Is this legal
 

I am glad to see that our frame is causing so much controversy. Just to reiterate..it is a frame, not BUMPERS. Also, I would like to personally thank everyone who has stuck up for us in the onslaught of words that have been thrown against this robot.

Our purpose in this design is to keep OUR robot from being pushed or shoved while we are capping a goal/picking up a tetra/ doing any thing to help our alliance win the match. I see for a few people who have posted that they are concerned about us flipping robots left and right, or lifting up their wheels. "Inhibiting motion" as some have called it. I assure to you our goal is NOT IN ANY MANNER to tip an opposing robot or to "inhibit them". I also offer this counterexample...If a robot is in front of you NOT PINNING you, just keeping you from going to the other side of the field, is that inhibiting your motion. It certainly is limiting it. They do not need to pin you against a field element, they are just getting in your way. We dont plan on lifting up a robot off the ground, and holding them there so they cannot move.

To any other doubters out there, if you could look further into our design. There is .5" + of flat before you get to any part of the wedge. The only way a robot is going to flip over against us, is if they decide to (to quote Cory's example) hit us going 10 fps, which probably isn't smart against any kind of robot...or if we push them for a good 4-5 seconds.

And just one more comment, which is purely my own 2 cents...If our wedge is scaring you that much, maybe our design is working. If that couple pounds of aluminum wrapped around the outside of our robot is causing some people to sweat so much, I think that half our battle is already won. Thanks again to the people who have stood up for us, not only as being legal, but not bashing our design. I think the people who are doubting us, will be pretty shaken when they see the amount of robots that will have some kind of wedge on them. Good luck everybody!

Re: Is this legal
 

Let's just blame FIRST for not being specific enough about entanglement and blocking. I agree that a wedge is legal for a defense, but illegal when used as an offense. I never believed that you guys intented to flip people over and/or inhibit motion, but a wedge could quickly go that route. Don't worry about our bot though. When I get to work on it, I am going to prevent access to the undercariage of our bot with plexiglass and self-tapping screws. Try flipping us now *Sticks out tongue*.

BTW: I think that ramming robots at high speed is against <G25> so if you do flip over by doing that, it is your fault because you violated a rule to do that.

Re: Is this legal
 

I don't see what FIRST was vague about. There's no way to make the rule any more objective than it is. This is a very subjective issue no matter what way you look at it. It's all up to the discretion of a ref if a team was using a wedge with malicious intent.

Re: Is this legal
 

The interpretation of the flipping rules that WPI has in both the Savage Soccer competition and at Battlecry is:

I believe this is very much in the spirit of FIRST's rules. Let's not get technical in trying to redefine words like blocking and entanglement.

Re: Is this legal
 

Im no Ref, But i'm calling it legal b/c its what holding their chassis together, they used a picture frame design so that they can squeeze an extra inch for instance,



5 secs at the end of the match all 3 robots go to the end zone that space between the goals is only big enough to fit one robot comfortably =) if Team A (call that mort) and team B (call it a high off the ground robot) robot go between goal 1 and 2 mort can just slide underneath w/o worry about knocking team b out of the zone trying to make sure that they get completely in the zone as well. (i'd draw picture better explaining what i'm thinking but its way to early and i've had a bad week =(. )


Thats how I see there design, besides at least half these teams are building high off the ground as it is so i doubt mort will be DQ'd for a tipping problem.

Re: Is this legal
 

Can anyone say Truck Town in 2003? Theu unveiled an absolutely beautiful robot- with an concept nobody else had thought of, reaching over the bridge to block the entire field.. After revealing their picture way before any regionals, FIRST banned this kind of concept, and 68 was forced to scrap what made their robot elevate from an amazing bot to an absolute beast.


about the wedge- if team 11 is a great capper but does not have much traction, their best method to go would be with a wedge, so teams could not push them around when they are capping. Wedges aren't always malicious, used properly they can be critical strategic elements.

Re: Is this legal
 

Whatever you feel is necessary.