Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

The only thing this would affect would be our current exit door for the ball container, but this came just at about the right time for us to change that.

I just wish we weren't finding out about this just now.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

What about teams that were hoping to dump their hoppers at the end into the coral, is this a shooter?

Carolyn

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

If you had a "door" that opened up to release the balls, and that door, when opened, was outside of the starting dimensions, would it be legal? Even if it is not powered and only gravity fed, would it be considered a shooter?

Could someone verify an answer to this question in the Q & A?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I interpret (hopefully or we have some work to do) it as no. It is not a shooter. Dave...can you confirm that this is the appropriate interpretation? :)

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

So by the looks of it if we had a piston open/close our door like in the below picture would be legal under this rule?



A conveyor brings them in, but they are not pushed out of the robot, they just roll out via gravity once the door is opened.

Legal?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I believe that is a correct interpretation.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Something I was wondering about, what if the balls aren't contained in the robot? The phrase that keeps popping up in the Q&A answers is something akin to "the mechanism that ejects the balls from the robot." But what if your robot is just pushing the balls around? Would something that extends out from the robot to push the balls into the goal be considered a shooter? Tha balls are not contained in the robot, and therefore cannot be ejected from it.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

My reading of the rules seems to indicate that since you're not ejecting the ball from the robot, you don't have a shooting mechanism as defined. Still, I think it warrants a Q&A just to be absolutely sure.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Based on this answer: (emphasis mine)

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. If your loading mechanism also ejects the ball from the robot, it would be considered a shooting mechanism.


To this thread:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=474

It appears that if part of your robot expands beyond the original dimensions. and you use that part to push a ball, then you have just used an illegal shooter.
I could read this to preclude a fold down ramp, because it would contact the ball after this impulse is delivered.

Am I missing something here?
Do you really think that this is the way it should be interpreted?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

"the mechanism"....do you consider gravity a mechanism?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

You highlighted the impulse portion, but look at the ejecting part. "the mechanism that delivers the final dynamic impulse that ejects the ball from the robot"

That leads me to believe that if the ball is not contained, it is not being ejected, and therefore the mechanism is not a shooter.

Also, a Q&A was already posted for a ramp, though I don't have the link. The response said that as long as gravity was the only force ejecting the balls, then the ramp would not qualify as a shooter.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Ergh, this really makes me mad. I don't understand a decision like this. We've been doing experiments perfecting our mechanism that would now violate the rule; we were on schedule, now we're definitely in trouble.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I also agree. I feel as if the rule should be edited to allow mechanisms under a certain velocity NOT to be considered shooters. If they stick to this rule, it would be saying that in 04 they were "unsafe" by allowing teams who's depositors where outside the starting envelope to compete.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I'm not sure, as there is not really an impulse applied to the balls, but nonetheless if it were to guide the balls, like a V shaped ramp, it may be technically illegal. Even yet, this should be specifically brought to Q&A so that we can all get this straightened out.