![]() |
Re: pic: In the Loading zone?
Quote:
Ben, Its 28 by 38 |
Re: pic: In the Loading zone?
nope.. =/
|
Re: pic: In the Loading zone?
Quote:
|
Re: pic: In the Loading zone?
maybe? but it's true.. Don't take it the wrong way... I wish it were that you were in the zone.. I've been fighting for these types of robots and logic for the last few days.. the post is a criticism of the absurd rule -- and since there are some that don't know that.. I changed it =)
|
Re: pic: In the Loading zone?
Quote:
absurd adj 1: inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense; ID: 1773 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 2/28/2005 Q: We designed and built a robot that would tip from 38x28 to 38x60. The “new” base and drive train is “blatantly obvious that our robot is in the LZ” and ”has a load bearing surface in contact with the hdpe”. Is our robot in the LZ? A: If we understand your question correctly, yes. Robots that "flop" basically must declare a 28" x 38" of their robot to be the "robot base." This is the section that the referees will always use to determine if your robot is in the loading zone. I know I could have phrased the question better but I was limited to the number of characters allowed. I won't argue the answer though. If I read it right then.. yep, she's in the LZ.... I think? |
Re: pic: In the Loading zone?
I agree. They just cant say its in the loading zone if they back up to it because they have to declare the front of the robot to be their "footprint". But does this only apply if your robot flops down? Our robot sort of expands at the beginning, and could we declare that our footprint is the front 28" of the robot which is less than 38" wide?
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:50. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi