Interesting Q/A's
 

Just starting this thread so that if someone sees and interesting Q/A from the FIRST forum, they can post it here (in case everyone on CD isn't checking Q/A). Please try to keep it to ones that haven't really been discussed or mentioned before, or ones that get answered with a completely different interpretation than expected. Also please try to keep any debate on these to a minimum, since they are official answers from FIRST.

Here's a few I think are interesting.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

This one is interesting:

Q:How is "throw" defined? If we roll a ball (i.e. it doesn't lose contact with the ground) from the robot, can it exceed the 12 m/s limit, or does "throwing" the ball include rolling it?

A: The exit velocity is limited to 12 m/s. This limit applies to all balls exiting the robot.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Q:
I'm wondering if there is a rule prohibiting you from attaching a leaf blower type of thing to blow balls off course from the top goal. I'm wondering if it is legal or not.

A:
There is no prohibition against this, provided the system is made from competition-legal parts and kit-of-parts motors.


Interesting defense that I hadn't really thought about. :ahh:

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Here's one I find sorta perplexing:

Q: 6.3.5 states "FIRST will allow you to keep all of your robot controls (Operator Interface, OI power supply, joysticks, etc.) and not ship them with your robot on Tuesday, 2/21/2006. This will allow you to continue to work on your programming. If you decide not to ship controls with your robot, please rememberyour initial competition. FIRST does not have replacement controls."

Just to be sure, does the Robot Controller fall under the "etc." mentioned in 6.3.5?

A:The Robot Controller is considered part of the robot, not part of the operator interface. As such, it must be shipped with the robot prior to the shipping deadline.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Incredibly disappointing. How are we supposed to develop software during the two 5 hour fix-it windows we all get after ship and during each week of regionals? Do they seriously expect us to spen hundreds of dollars on another just to make full use of the fix-it windows when our kit-provided RC is sitting dead in a crate? Do they expect us to minimize our code to run on an old controller? Then why have the new controller with more program space? What about rookie teams who have no RC from previous years? This Q/A answer does nothing except provide the rich teams an advantage. I hope FIRST seriously reconsiders this Q/A answer because of the unleveling of the playing field that will result.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Submit a follow-up question to Q/A if it is a large concern and see what their feedback is. I would suggest wording it in a more conducive manner.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=313

Q:
Hello, I'm a member of team 1814 (Rookie) in this years First Robotics Competition. We are currently not certain if our design violates one of the designing / game rules. Our robot has a internal system to transport and to store the balls ( the size used in competition). But we've read about one rule, <G13> stating that all of the balls must be contained within the robots and must be clearly visible from outside.

And another of our design, which involves a tight conveyor belt to transport the balls internally, we're debating whether it violates rule <G30> that states Robots must be designed to permit the release and removal of any balls from the robot without being powered up after the match. Though we could remove the balls on the conveyor belt manually, but it is liely that some of the balls contained in the storage may not be easily removed without poweing up the robot.

Out team is waiting for your answer if these disigns violates those rules.

A:
Under Rule <G13> any balls contained in the robot at the start of the match must be clearly visible so that the referees can determine the ball count. You will have to use your best judgement to determine if this is permitted by your design.

If it will be difficult to remove balls from your conveyor design without power, then you will be in violation of Rule <G30>. We would recommend that you reconsider the design and implement one that will not cause any problems for you at the competitions.

Does this one spook anyone's designs a bit?

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Yes.

It makes it sound like only an open, gravity fed hopper is permissable. I doubt my fears however; even in a gravity hopper, it would be somewhat difficult to count all the balls from a distance.

Looks like we'll have to buy some Lexan!

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

The IFI site (if you have a 2004 or 2005) robot controller will update it to the new one for $125.00. This is assuming it is in perfect working condition when it arrives. Other wise there may be charge to repair it first. We discussed this and decided it was worth the investment. Rookie teams may be able to get an older controller from an established team and get it upgraded to continue robot lab during the fix it windows.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Q:[/b] 6.3.5 states "FIRST will allow you to keep all of your robot controls ...to continue to work on your programming.

+

A:The Robot Controller ... must be shipped with the robot

[Spock][raise eyebrow] Highly illogical! [/raise eyebrow] [/Spock]

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Especially since... isn't the 2006 OI compatible only with the 2006 brain? [Also raised eyebrow;) ]

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Yeah, and the "all" part is even bolded.

Ineed help
 

ya this has nothing to do with the subject but I need help trying to post or what ever it is that you have to do to put a question on the website... thanks

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

You must be a mentor and team main contact to receive the login required to post on the FIRST Q/A system.

Getting back to interesting Q/A's.

Hi
 

I am having trouble with posting a thread can you help me

Re: Hi
 

Repeated for emphasis:

Your Main Contact should have received a username and password for this purpose. If you lost it for whatever reason, contact FIRST.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

hey thanks and what reginal are you at my team is at Denver and Portland

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Not quite, a conveyor system with lexan side walls or a perforated conveyor material would be legal, provided there was a manual handle or crank you could use to manually advance it when the robot is powered down.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=182 That one is great, it asks about the end of auto, and the GDC answered for the end of the match. Very wierd.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Ken, read the entire section you removed from your quote. Mainly the one I've bolded below.



Q: 6.3.5 states "FIRST will allow you to keep all of your robot controls (Operator Interface, OI power supply, joysticks, etc.) and not ship them with your robot on Tuesday, 2/21/2006. This will allow you to continue to work on your programming. If you decide not to ship controls with your robot, please rememberyour initial competition. FIRST does not have replacement controls."

Just to be sure, does the Robot Controller fall under the "etc." mentioned in 6.3.5?

A:The Robot Controller is considered part of the robot, not part of the operator interface. As such, it must be shipped with the robot prior to the shipping deadline.

I don't see any confusion here.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

The confusion?!

The code is loaded into the robot controller, not the user interface.

If you dont hang onto the robot controller you will have nothing to load your code into, so you cant test it, work on it, debug it - nothing?

what can you do with the user interface if you dont have the robot controller? Nothing!

So whats the point of keeping half the control system? Teams that have money can buy a second robot controller. Teams that dont get to sit on their hands for 4 weeks.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

GMTA! Me and my team were discussing this a few days ago, Would be funny to go out there with a model-t crank to unload our bot!

In any case, im thinking it would be alot simpler to use some hinges and latches and create a opening section of lexan to load/unload our bot

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

They seem to have answered the question for all four of the periods, including autonomous.


I think that the "no flopping bots" rule is quite interesting, a la 2005 HOT and 2002 Hammond.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I was a little confused by this question...

Definition of midnight
Please clarify the definition of midnight in the robot ship rule:
Quote:
6.6.1.1 Crate Shipment Deadline and Requirement
ALL team crates must leave the team's hands or be delivered to the team’s initial event’s drayage warehouse
by midnight local time February 21, 2006.
Is midnight one minute after 11:59 pm, or is it one minute before 12:01 am?
Reply With Quote

answer.....
Re: Definition of midnight
If you ship at any time on February 21, 2006 you will be in compliance with the "by midnight local time" rule.

Oh thanks, that really helps.

(please lets not start a discussion on when a day starts or ends)

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

OK, I'm a new mentor for FRC, and the main mentor asked me to check into shipping rules. Other deadlines (such as Chairman's) specify 11:59 pm. I didn't want our team to get Cinderella'd because there was a misunderstanding in regard to which day midnight belonged to - that's all.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Don't worry so much about it. I would just plan a pick up sometime in the afternoon and you will be fine. I really doubt you could get a fedex truck to be at your facility at midnight anyway. :rolleyes:

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

No, but I wouldn't want FedEx to show up at 5:00 pm Tuesday, only then find out because of the way midnight was defined, we were 17 hours too late!

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

i understand. Just ship it mid day on tuesday and you will be fine.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Back to Q/A's......

I wouldn't have thought about this one:

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Velcro!

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I read through this a few times and I'm still slightly mystified.
On one hand, we have this ...

yet in another thread, I found this

Any thoughts, or are these two rulings relating to totally separate parts of the game?

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

it sounds like there must be a pause for the counters to register, between the end of auton mode and the next phase of the game?

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I'm not exactly sure what the questions is, but it sounds like there will be a 5sec grace period for balls to be counted at the end of automode. However, if they are to count balls that are in the air as the buzzer sounds, but aren't yet in the center goal, will it still tell the scoring system to make a 5sec delay? Bottom line, is there a 5sec pause no matter what at the end of automode?

I suggest submitting a followup to FIRST Q/A if there are concerns, or please continue this discussion in the other "how are balls scored" threads.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

According to some of the GDC guys up at the FIRST Kickoff in Manchester, the 5 second pause will occur only if the sensors pick up balls on the ramp that have not yet dropped into the goal tube to be counted, otherwise there will be no pause.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Amy,

Since I asked the question regarding the scoring I will comment. The answer I received from FIRST is exactly the response I was looking for. My question was in order to determine how they were counting balls that have left the robot but have not yet been sent down the tube for the center goal. I was concerned that if we shot 10 and only 7 made it to the counters when auton ended(or 5 .. whatever), what would happen to the balls that scored but didn't hit the counter in time. I was particularly worried about auton because you could potentially win auton and not get balls counted for you. In my example, I was worried that we would lose 9 points (10 - 7) * 3.

The answer was much more detailed. According to the answer, balls in flight toward the center goal (think basketball) when the timer expires will still count if they make it in. However, the corner goals are treated like hockey: when the buzzer goes off, the puck better already be in the net.

The 5 second delay will have to be used for each match. If a ball is in flight, then it will take less than the 5 seconds to get to the goal. I am taking FIRST for their word on their answer and will have the printout of their answer in hand at the first regional.

-Paul

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

More:


(bolded by me)

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Best so far:

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

even as we speak the moral of an entire team somewhere has dropped through the floor! "There goes our entire strategy! Now we have to start over from scratch."

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

And, a resolution to the shipping-the-robot-controller dealio (with a hint of explanation of FIRST's logic):

There's still that imbalance of folks who can and can't purchase a second RC, but I guess we'll have to go back to the old saying that FIRST isn't fair.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I too have posted a question (in Section 5.3, but they may move it) on keeping the robot controller. It isn't up yet (I guess a mod needs to approve it) but the title will be "Purchasing an additional RC vs. keeping the KOP one" or something like that. I want a concrete response and a logical reason behind it. We'll see if we get it.

While on the forums, I found this one quite interesting: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=286

I think they mean, "provided they were not modified before the 2006 kickoff event." They really need to be careful with their answers. I think the original rulebook is pretty good, and the team updates have been few and short, but the Q/A board answers I could see beginning to lead to some mass confusion and countless disputes.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

To be absolutely pedantic, it should be "provided that they were neither modified, nor assembled, before the 2006 kickoff event". By <R15>, they can't re-use a mechanism, but they could probably get around it by putting it together in advance, taking it all apart, and re-assembling it during the season. (Functionally, it makes no difference, of course.)

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I'm going to go back to the FIRST Q&A forum on this, but I wanted to vent a little.

We are planning to use some slow-speed belts to move balls around inside the 'bot. In testing, we've been using some very fine (220 grit) previously used sanding belts for this. They work great and don't mar the balls. Now we're forced to go out and find something that will work as well (smooth on one side, grippy on the other), which will certainly cost a lot more and weigh more, to boot. I think they tossed out the baby with the bath water on this one.

1. I don't know why someone formally asked the question.

2. I really don't understand FIRST's blanket answer since FIRST already has a rule against mechanisms that damage balls. If a sanding belt conveyor isn't causing damage, why ban it?

Thank you. I don't really feel any better, but at least I've shared my pain.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Rick -- I presume you're talking about this response: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...ght=sand+paper

Did you also see this second, newer response? http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...ght=sand+paper

It seems that the latter again allows sanding belt as a conveyance surface with the existing caveat that it must not damage balls.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Madison, it's gotten ambiguous. This http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...highlight=sand earlier thread specifically says, "It is reasonable to expect that sanding belts will damage the balls surfaces, even through incidental contact. As such, under the Parts Use Flowchart, sanding belts would not be permitted." I believe you could make this statement of any friction-based device for shooting or moving balls inside the robot. I know that our best shooting wheel (which meets velocity requirements and has a perfectly smooth surface) sometimes creates small marks on the surface of the balls. A strict interpretation of this rule would lead us to eliminate any friction-based mechanism. Good-bye wheel-based shooters.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I find this Q/A answer quite underwritten for such a thorough question. ;)

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=442

Very disappointing. I feel I brought up some good points/arguments/questions only to have them ignored. This Q/A answer/ruling does nothing but channel money into IFI.

The answer to my other question here http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=464 ins't so illogical but still disappointing.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

What I can't seem to understand is why this year is any different?

In the past teams were allowed to keep the RC and bring it with them to the first event. Last year we were forced to ship the RC out to IFI to get it repaired (under warranty :) ). If we were not allowed to bring it with us to the event we would have been forced to rely on shipping to get it there on time.

Being able to keep the RC gives teams the ability to be more realistic into the whole business plan idea. After a finished product is delivered the programmer will get time after the deadline to perfect the instructions(code).

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

sounds like its time for someone to design an RC simultor, that runs on a PC, can simuate the function of the RC, and allow the user to define the inputs and outputs that are present on their robot?

That would allow SW to be tested with just the operators interface, and a PC.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

This one bugs me a little, because of the reasonably elegant solution that the team has proposed, and the silly response that was received:Who hasn't connected a battery directly to a motor, to advance it, or to test it? The match is over, let the team do as they see fit—it's absolutely clear in the question that there is no possibility of the extra battery being used in a match, and it seems unlikely that the extra battery will hinder efforts to remove the robot from the field—indeed, it appears to do quite the opposite.

Of course, the best solution would be to design a system which doesn't need any extra power to release balls....

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

While mildly off-topic for this thread, I'd like to highlight an alternative to the Robot Controller dilema. Our team uses a 400 Mhz co-processor to do all of our calculations, the only thing the IFI controller does is send out PWM values (so that we stay within the rules). This means that teams could work on and test software development with nothing more than a laptop.

If you're interested, you can find information about the project here on our website. The pages include a detailed description of what we're working on, downloadable trails, a tutorial for getting yourself started, and personal support information.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

The difference between connecting a battery for testing, and connecting a battery for competition, is just that, testing vs competition. Fact is, it becomes a safty issue. if a motor is connected though a RC, it can always be disabled via remote while on the playing field. If a battery is connected directly to a motor, it cant be turned off.

Dont get me wrong, i agree that it could be better if they were allowed, just pointing out the FIRST Perspective.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

To whowever in the GDC wrote that, you made my day almost as much as Beatty's dance video. :)

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Finally, definition of a shooter. I have a sneaking suspicion that this will affect many teams plans.

Question: Can you clarify this for us? What constitutes a shooter mechanism, or more specifically, where does a loading mechanism end and a shooting mechanism begin? Stated in rule S03, a shooting mechanism cannot exceed the initial footprint, but can a mechanism designed to get the balls from the floor to the shooter exceed the footprint? What if this system is not around ground level (within the bumber area)?

Answer: A shooter includes the mechanism that delivers the final dynamic impulse that ejects the ball from the robot, and any parts of the robot that contact the ball while and/or after this impluse is delivered. Depending on their exact design and construction, a subsystem that delivers balls into the final energy transfer mechanism may or may not be considered part of the shooter.

Ball delivery mechanisms that are not part of the shooter are not automatically limited to the operating volumes indicated in Rule <S03>. However, they still must satisfy all relevent 2006 FRC rules.


http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=455

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

They respond with that answer so many times on several different questions, but don't really answer other questions in that regard. My question is: Assuming the hopper has nothing to do with the shooting mechanism, can it be out of the starting dimensions? Simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Yes. Their response does answer that question.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Here's an interesting Q/A about back bots and disabled robots:

Question:
If a team's robot is disabled mid-match, are they required to maintain a back-bot?

Answer:
If one of the alliance robots is disabled during the match, then it is up to the two remaining alliance members to either bocome the backbot, or move the disabled robot into an appropriate position such that it can be the backbot.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=431

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

move: drag the smoldering hunk by its cables! :^)

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

playing a bit of the devil's advocate but here goes...

If they really want to be technical (not that I would want to be the one on the field making this argument) but, the match is over, what FRC Game or Robot Rules really apply when not in a match (looking through lawyer-type glasses) I can see where safety would win in this case though, but it raises other questions...

FIRST keeps saying things to the affect of "...make the balls easily removable...don't take too long..."

Who defines "easily" or "too long"? are they defined?

Better question; what happens if "too long" is surpassed trying to unload robot after the match?

Deduct 5 pts?
DQ after the match?
Smacked with a pool noddle?

Don't get me wrong, the last thing I am asking for is more rules, but some reference for all the good-intentioned judges to use at all the various competition sites would be nice.

my 2 cents
-Bill

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

No doubt the discretion of the field personnel - just as judgement is involved in deciding what is ramming, what is field damage, etc.

I believe I saw the answer in the Q&A. If the balls cannot be easily removed the team will be asked to modify their device before they are allowed to compete again.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I personally am not agreeing with this decision

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=508

that counts roller reversing mechanisms designed to empty into the corner goals as "shooters."

To me, it makes no sense. Shooters should be defined as something designed to get something into the center hoop, not the corner goals.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Ricky,

That's why I urged FIRST to make their case clear to everyone. A lot of teams are affected.

Don't take it personally... It's just a game...

Regards,

Mike

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I agree, hopefully it is included in the next update. It will affect alot of people.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Here is where things get fuzzy for me. S03 states in part, "Any mechanism used to throw balls must be contained within the original 28" x 38" x 60" starting envelope of the ROBOT and must be shielded such that the mechanism cannot make contact with other ROBOTs.

From dictionary.com: Throw defintion #2. To discharge into the air by any means.

Throw does not equal roll...but until FIRST agrees with Webster, looks like its back to the drawing board... :(

Kev

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

A problem with a lot of the Q/A answers is that they give a simplistic or general answer that is often not related to the question and never explained with reasoning or logic.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

wait, are they saying that even a small pneumatic at ground level used to softly push balls out so that they don't get clogged when dumping them NEEDS to be sheilded?

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Wouldnet this also effect dumping hoppers or hoppers that have a door to dump?

if the hopper goes outside the size, then its illegal because its considered a shooter since by changing position its imparting force via gravity and potential energy.

If a door opens on the base of the hopper to put balls into the lower goals, then the hopper is a shooting mechanism beacause of the same argument. Right?

oooh this might be the first real intresting rule issue this year!

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I agree. By the strict following of the rules, any device used to push, throw, manipulate or other means used to score the balls AND anything that comes in contact after the start of shooting, must remain in the confines of the starting 28 x 38.

This means that a hopper without a device to push the balls into the goal and anything attached to the hopper as a guidance system (door or flap) must also remain inside the confines and must be shielded.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I must put down the question and answer that I asked about sponsors, logos, school names and numbers. This is a rule that has not been enforced in the past but with the strict enforcement of rules this year, according to the Q&A, will be. It has even been referenced in other Q&A's as a definitive answer. I guess we will see at the regionals.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

ahaha, FIRST wants everyone to build to same robots?

Some weird rulings.

But so it goes, I guess.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Yes. Look at the animation. The robot that goes to the corner goal during autonomous and dumps the balls in would be deemed illegal by this definition of "shooter."

Kev, who now realizes that being behind isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Could somebody post that question (do doors have to stay inside starting footprint) on Q/A? An official ruling will hurt a lot of people.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I don't think that is true. Per update 6 and the corresponding update to to section 4 of the manual, a shooting mechanism "delivers the final dynamic impulse that ejects the ball from the robot, and any parts of the robot that contact the ball while and/or after this impulse is delivered."

In the case of reversing rollers or using a pneumatic piston to push balls, the rollers or the piston do deliver and impulse and would be considered a shooting mechanism. However, opening a door does not apply an impulse to the balls and should not be considered a shooting mechanism.

Edit: just found this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=43369 and it appears that other people support my interpretation. Any more discussion on this issue should happen in the other thread.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

The problem with this rule is that enforcement will be difficult. Especially since most harvesters will look the same with only a few legally allowed to push balls. Robot inspectors could determine if a robot has the possibility of violating <S03>. The referees enforcement would need to be done on a case by case basis on the field. The referees would need to know that if robot x pushes balls out of its harvester than it is breaking <S03> but robot y is legally capable of doing so.

It's a similar problem to the muzzle velocity rule. FIRST might check muzzle velocity during robot inspection, after that it's on your honor.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I don't want to curb any good discussion, as this definitely is, but this thread was meant mainly for posting interesting Q/As that people need to see, rather than in-depth discussion on them.
Please post in Q/A if there is debate on something and post the official answer here. If you want to debate it further, please start a thread for it so it'll be easily found instead of buried here. Thanks!

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Here's an interesting one...

I wonder how one provides shielding for the entire field...

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Darn it! I knew we shouldn't have given up on that force field generator!

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Is it me or are the responses to some of the questions this year worded oddly?

I can't tell if the responder is trying to be funny or sarcastic - makes me laugh and cry at the same time. Shield the entire field???

Anyways, what I don't get is the one Bill brought up - How can something done on purpose (if this is the normal method..), be considered "incidental"???

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I think that Q&A is similar to the one where the team asked about using a horn on the robot--the robot would be given massive shocks and all, but then they backed it up with the no-obnoxious-noisemakers rule in the event section. At the same time, a robot that used a love tap (and didn't ram or anything) against the wall to release jammed balls would (if I read the intent of the answer correctly) be allowed.

Someone feel free to seek clarification.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Here's a few more

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

That makes a change from last year. Last year I was a student coach and all the Ref's would have no issue, granted we had the same head ref for all three competitions but still.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Yeah, when I asked this question I was pretty sure that the answer would be yes... it seemed logical at the time. So, now, as the team's rules guru, I'll have to be a driver (can't shoot worth anything), which hurts our team if CENSORED doesn't work. (I'm not the best driver, as the others have experience) Either that or the Human player (either one of two members: Robbiw or Duwayne), David (our main driver), or our backup driver will need to memorize the rules. This whole rule is sort of nonsensical, since the coach could coach the students in their argument.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Not sure why this forces you to be in one position or another exactly. But though you may have a student coach that can't discuss with the head ref, it doesn't mean the coach can't discuss with your other 3 driveteam members and have them debate it with the refs. Personally, I think all driveteam members should be required to know the rules inside and out.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Why just the driveteam members? I'm not on drive (and am not likely to be on drive), but I know the rules at least as well as anyone else on the team, if not better. How about the whole team knows at least Section 4 better than the backs of their hands?

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

A little background:

Question:
We intend to have a door open up and deposit balls into the lower goal.
If the door swings open and transits outside of the starting footprint but ends up inside the footprint would this be legal?

Answer:
If the door is part of a shooter mechanism (see this question/answer), then it cannot transit outside the 28" x 38" starting footprint without violating Rule <S03>. If the door is not part of the shooter mechanism or is part of a ball delivery system in which the balls are motivated solely by gravity (see this question/answer) then it may be permitted to extend beyond the starting footprint. However, it must still satisfy all relevent 2006 FRC rules. In particular, any sloped surface upon which balls roll out of the robot may be subject to Rule <R04>.

Rule <R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in
pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a
robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might
push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical. Devices deployed outside the robot's
footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for
example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur
depending on the severity of the infraction.


My question is this: If we have a drawbridge-style gate that has an axis of rotation above 8.5 inches off the floor, and that is deployed only at the corner goals with no intention of being operated anywhere else, sort of like the red robot with the dumping basket and white paddles in the game animation, would that be considered an infraction of the above? It will only be used at the corner goals, and is not intended to "become a wedge that interferes with other robots."

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

My understanding of this is that it will only be ruled an infraction if some one actually drives up the ramp.

It would however behoove you to use a passive device like a loop of tubing that is taller than the balls but when combined with the ramp makes a rectangle approximately the size of the bumper zone to show intent not to use the ramp to tip others. This should keep most robots from driving on it anyway.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I didn't say JUST the driveteam members, as it was a response to another comment.
I agree that the whole team should know the rules well, as it may look bad when sponsors or anyone really comes up to a team member and asks what the game is about and they say... "eh, I don't know".... Our whole team takes a game test and must pass it.

Another Q/A:
I suppose I am confused on this? If there is no delay for counting balls, and your scoring zone turns off as the period changes, how will a ball in flight be counted, and who is going to keep track of that? Besides the fact that there was a Q/A referred to that says it will trigger a 5sec wait to count balls if it detects them in the center goal. Maybe they confused delay in match play, vs delay in scoring deactivation? Anyone help clarify?

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

The answer says there will be no delay after periods 2 and 3 (and 4, I guess). This means there could be a delay after period 1 (autonomous) - I suspect that there almost always will be, so alliances can be informed by the system whether they are playing offense or defense.

It also says that balls in flight will be counted. Perhaps at the end of periods 2 and 4 everything applicable is turned off except the center ball counter, which stays active for 5 more seconds. (At the end of period 3, everything already on stays active; everything at the other end is activated for the final free-for-all.) I don't know how they would determine whether or not the balls counted in that period were in flight, stuck in the chute, or shot late by a robot.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=674
Only slightly different than what the world would be without duct tape! ;)

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Guess I'm still not sure how they will accurately count balls in flight. Seems like it would be easier to just say, any balls not in the goal before the buzzer won't count. As a ref, I wouldn't really want to keep track of that, or be in a situation where I missed one, or added one incorrectly. Maybe they expect to have dedicated volunteers to only watch for that. Wish they would clearly state how. I can see a lot of debate happening on this type of instance, esp if it affects automode results (a last sec ball in flight, not detected by the goal yet, not sure how fast human interaction can happen there).

I guess that 5sec counting delay is only after automode, if it detects balls in the goal. Seems like it should do the same for other periods... same concept... we'll see.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=609

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

You have to remember that the other periods (except 4) only have one goal active. So, if redabot shoots into their goal, then it switches, that goal can count the balls since it has nothing else to do. The only issue would be if a robot fired after the period ended.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I realize that one goal is active during the 2 middle periods. My point is, when the buzzer sounds, your goal is no longer active. So, if you shot a ball a split second before the buzzer sounded and it goes in, how do they count it? The system can't count it. Human interaction they say, but I just wonder how and how well that's gonna work...first having to be positive it shot before the buzzer, and second to be sure the amount is counted right. The same goes for automode... if a ball is in flight, it won't trigger any score delay, so there's a potential of incorrect automode score.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious, but I just don't see how it will work well to have human real-time scoring for these situations. Refs already have enough to watch. No one else has this concern?

I don't really want to debate it, but if anyone has a confirmed answer for that specifically, let me know.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Didn't see this anywhere yet...

From http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=323

One of very few rule reversals this season?

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I don't believe it: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...ghlight=holder

So what's wrong with a weight-lightened flagpole holder? And why tell us this only now, the day before ship?

I have the utmost respect for the GDC, and don't like to criticize or second guess them. But why does this matter, as long as you have a functioning flagpole holder according to <R13> above? I predict a lot of machines will come into inspection with reduced-weight tubes.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

OMG Amy, I love this one.. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! That's great! Fun with numbers.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I'm with Gary on this one - what the heck difference does it make if the 12 inch long pvc flag holder has little holes in it. The original rule didn't dis-allow that so why now???

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Two comments:

1. Use schedule 20 pipe -- it's lighter than Sched 40 or 80.

2. I wonder if a judge would really freak out if you built this with an ABS pipe instead? ABS is lighter and just as strong. It's not technically PVC, but then again, they already allowed 2.75-inch pool noodles, which are a clear violation of the written rules.

and a third for free:

3. Now that the robots have shipped, I hereby declare that FIRST Silly Season is officially open!

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

edit - Rick beat me to it.... ;)

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

Sorry, I wasn't clear before - we didn't do it for weight - we did for "fun". The few oz we removed wasn't needed to get to 120lbs - we were having fun and didn't even think that it would be a problem until the question was asked about it that Gary pointed out.
I do - thank you both for the great suggestions though.
We'll now have to purchase the schedule 20, and make a quicky replacement at the regional event, on practice day - its no big deal, more annoying than anything else.
Now back to the regularly scheduled thread posting about Interesting Q&A's

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

So just so everyone knows!!!

And also:

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I'll go out on a limb and assume the reasoning is that if a team tries hard enough to lighten the flag holder, it might suddenly stop functioning as such when the robot gets hit. Thus flinging the flag around and possibly damaging it or messing up other robots. They're erring on the side of caution since they know how desperate some teams can get for weight.

Re: Interesting Q/A's
 

I LMAO reading this one. Props to 1293 for an entertaining way to ask a question.