Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I don't see the point of these arguments. Regionals have not begun and neither you, me, jgannon, or even Mr Lavery know how teams are going to play the game. Sure, there might be some speculation from scrimmages and such, but don't argue for something that has not happened yet. You have a point that refs may overlook the rule or people may interpret it wrong, but nothing has happened yet... there is no problem. If you go to a regional event and run into a problem with this rule, by all means come back here and complain. But for now, take confidence in FIRST and the refs. They may not be prefect (you have shown your thoughts on the matter quite clearly), but everyone involved is trying their hardest to make this game run smoothly and most of all, fun.

So until its a pressing problem, let it go.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

For everyone that refers to the rule not changing since 1/11 for "touching the hdpe with the robot base and/or" (answer to question #978) ... you must not have been wanting it to or something. There were many questions relative to the lack of understanding as to what or how a robot base could be touching? If the zone was 3 dimensionsal? Do extensions from the robot count as being in the zone? ect, ect, ect. Yes, many of the answers were "refer to question #978". My quess is that the responder must have thought that the response to #978 was clear - at least to some.
It wasn't until 2/16 that "load bearing within the max. 28"x38" base" was issued as a response to question #1617. I asked the question because I was still confused as to how a robot base could be touching the hdpe triangle in a way that would be blatently obvious to the ref.
In retrospect, I am very glad that they have included "danglers extended from the 28"x38" base as a way to meet the requirement. As you all know that have been following the Q&A, that question was originally responded to with "No".
So, by allowing danglers now will give a larger group of teams(especially those with wide wheel bases) a chance to meet the requirement.
I wonder if an alternative solution would have been, turning the loading hdpe triangle around so that the flat side is facing out and the point is facing the loading station, as clearly the geometric problem for wide wheel based robots is that the point of the hdpe triangle is pointing out making them drive to the point that they are almost touching the rail. The tetra grabbers usually need some amount of room to do the magic - that distance and space is normally designed in, based upon the understanding of the starting position, which may not be the best solution or choice for picking up a tetra from a loading station.
Tom, due to feedback from the scrimmages the rule was altered. The discussion is good and maybe this and other discussions will also be something to remember at the summer meetings. Lessons learned so as to try to improve can be a good thing, improvements for next year.
So, whatever FIRST does we will all adapt to - because that is what we do.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

On 1/11/05 FIRST clarified the definition of "being in the loading zone." They did not make it a requirement to be in the loading zone to pick up a tetra from the autoload station until team update #8 which was well into February and much to late to change robot designs. We designed our robot to be able to pickup tetras from the loading zone extremely quickly. It was the main focus of our strategy. This late rule change completely took away our ability to use the autoloader, and negated our key strategy. My issue is that by February it is much to late to make rules that affect the design of the robots. It is too late to redesign at that point.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Not to stump anyone's good discussions here, but there's another (much longer) thread on this very same topic in the "rules/strategy" category, it's called "load bearing surface".
A lot of the points in this thread have already been made and discussed there as well. Might continue, or add to that one instead.
Just trying to keep duplicate discussions to a min...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=34895

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

And this is exactly the point me and collmando have been trying to make. The rule was poorly planned and implemented. I guess we're just supposed to deal with it, <shakefist> but its unfair. </shakefist>

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I think that discussion upon the legitimacy of a rule is appropriate here. Personally, it looks like this has changed from a dscussion about a rule to a discussion about whether we should question the FIRST guys...

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

If you read my response for content, you would know that this has nothing to do with "questioning the FIRST guys" There have been many obnoxious remarks in this thread about what seems to be a pretty simple rule...

You are either touching the loading zone, or not.

I don't see what this has do referees, gracious professionalism, or the holocaust. In my post I was simply trying to ask people to wait until regionals begin before making outrageous predictions or talking down about the refs.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Tom relax man... we aren't attacking the refs.. we think this rule is going to hurt them and all the teams.. they dont' needs to spend time looking for this...
which they prob won't.. but we need to know exactly how this is going to be judged.. if you are covering the entire zone and they can't see.. will you get a penalty? we need to know now so we can atleast act accordingly to this rule


you can't deny there is a huge grey area right now.. this really needs to be solved before friday

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Well in that case your best bet would be to talk to the head ref at your first event. If he/she says you are fine, dont worry about it. If he/she says your robot is illegal, hang a string or something to touch the loader. Then, alert the refs you have done so to avoid any penalties.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

I would make a strong wager that this topic will be brought up on the "drivers meeting" at each and every regional, and the head ref will define what is "in" and "out" of the loading zone. Each year, the head referees communicate better, and this is the hot topic this year.

Everyone just needs to sit back and see what happens at the first regional.

Andy B.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Read 1764. Further clarification is there.

If you assume "never rely on stage state 2" is a type meant to read "state 3"--and I think we can safely assume that is the case--then we have a pseudo-answer here.

--Petey

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Part of the problem is that many robots can not clearly move from state 1 to state 2. This discussion is only focusing on the robots that are going to be in state 3, which there will be robots that end up there. If all robots could clearly move from state 1 to state 2 at all times, they would of course, do it. These people aren't arguing on how they can get around the rules or how to take advantage of them. They are arguing what can be done to support/ how it can be supported so that the game will be fair and just. The refs are humans and we won't be able to argue their decisions once given, but the problem is that the rule the judges are given to support is very difficult to clarify and has a high probability of error. FIRST, although doing their best, should not be leaving such a high probability of human error due to reasons such as the unrest that it is causing right now. Hopefully, the problem will be given the attention it deserves so that the designers won't have to have zip- ties hanging down as a solution and the strategists won't have to waste time worrying about the exact angle the robot is going in at. Until that is done, there is a problem with the rule and it only makes sense that people are going to be arguing over it. If any decent solutions can be thought of to adapt to the unfortunate status quo, they would be very helpful until (hopefully!) FIRST recognizes the problems with the rule and finds a better way to enforce it.

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

The answer to Question 1764 has been corrected. It appears that there was a typo, and it is now consistent with Petey's interpretation.

This falls perfectly in line with "Dave's Theory Of Quantum Robotics." A robot can only exist in one of two states. It is either all the way "IN" the loading zone (FIRST has defined this back on 1/11/05 as being clearly and obviously in contact with the loading zone triangle with either the robot drive system and/or an element of the robot base; and if it is in contact with such a robot component then by definition some part of the robot is also within the volume of space vertically above the triangle), or it is all the way "OUT" of the loading zone (where all parts of the robot are completely and obviously outside of the volume established by a vertical projection of the triangular loading zone). If you are not all the way "IN" (FIRST's "State 2"), or all the way "OUT" (FIRST's "State 1"), then your state must be indeterminate (FIRST's "State 3").

When in this indeterminate condition, it is impossible to declare with certainty if the robot is "IN" or "OUT." The degree of certainty will be modified by the observational angles, distances, field of view, and other factors. All that can be categorically determined is that there is a probability that the robot may be "IN" or "OUT." A robot that is over, but not touching, the loading zone falls into this situation - there is a probability that it may be "IN" but there is not enough knowledge about the state of the robot to make a declarative determination. The quantum state of the robot is unknown. This is a transitional state through which the robot must pass while moving from the "IN" quantum to the "OUT" quantum (and back again), but while in this state the robot may only be referred to with probabilities of its condition.

It is not the job of the referees to base their decisions (and potential penalties) on probabilities of an event occuring. They must base their decisions on specific, black-and-white determinations of the state of the game. When it is necessary to determine if the robot is "IN" the loading zone, the referees should use only those crtieria that can conclusively show that the robot is indeed in the required state (i.e. if it is touching, then we know that it is in the zone). When it is necessary to determine if the robot is "OUT" of the loading zone, the referees should use only those criteria that can conclusively show that the robot has indeed left the entire loading zone (i.e. no part of the robot is in the vertical projected area of the triangle, therefore we know that it cannot be touching the zone). Asking the referees to detemine the probable state of the robot based on questionable observational information is just asking for arguments, challenges, and chaos on the field.

-dave

Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 14
 

Checking to confirm which events 968 is registered for right now

;)