Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

On another note about the game anim.,
If you notice both the blue kick bot (who's foot goes back outside the robot's base) and the red "funnel" bot, whose barrel seems to go outside its repective base, at times...
I'm sure dave was just trying to convey the game's concept without checking how legal the bots were, but It's interesting to note that the game animation didn't display much damage with all those exposed mechanics. I know you wouldn't have added it in anyways. I just find it really difficult that the shooting mechanism now includes guiding components, such as barrels. For those of us with turrets (ie, us) this really complicates things with two weeks to go, just because our original design consisted of a guiding "rail" mechanism that would extend outside of the footprint. The spinwheels themselves are within the footprint well, and encased/covered. 2 weeks to go...time to find a completely new design solution...-sigh-
:rolleyes:

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

not really. The animation was created for the orignal rules set, and those 'bots were legal then (I think). Later, the GDC decided that it was unsafe, and changed the rule accordingly. It's unlikely that Dave ran his 'bots through a vigorus inspection to see if they were legal. afterall it's just meant to get the concept across.

On another note: We're unaffected by the changed, as we are not able to extend outside of our original footprint, and the collector mech. can't be easily reversed.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

The rule change may impact some of the teams, depending on the mechanism that provides the "final dynamic impulse", and any with aiming devices outside of the 28 x 38 footprint.
Ball collectors that could be run in reverse to deploy balls into the lower goals are now illegal, if the mechanism providing the "final dynamic impulse" is outside of the 28 x 38 footprint - If the thing that provides the "final dynamic impulse" remains within the footprint, it is legal to deploy using that mechanism into the lower goal.
Any aiming devices mounted outside of the 28 x 38 footprint, and used in conjunction with the aiming of the "lower goal shooter" (ball collector run in reverse), now makes deploying in the lower goal illegal per the definition released in update 6.
In addition, I assume that protecting the mechanism is now also required as it is considered a "shooter".
Since there are many design variations of ball collectors, each team will need to determine
1) what is the mechanism that provides the "final dynamic impulse"
2) Does it stay within the 28 x 38 footprint
3) Is it protected (except for the entrance/exit opening)

That's how I see this -
Mike

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

As much as the FIRST powers-that-be would like to tell everyone to "quit being lawyers with the rules" and "look at the rule intent", this clarification is a perfect example that lawyer-type scrutiny of the rules is a necessity unless you want to do a last minute redesign. I think a lot of teams looked at the intent of this rule and got burned.

Overall, I thought FIRST did a great job with the rules this year - very simple and very clear for the most part. However, something is always going to fall through the cracks (and I don't mean that in a bad way - people need to know that it's practically impossible to do something perfectly).

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

In Section 4 The Game, there's a new definition of SHOOTING MECHANISM. There is no definition of MECHANISM in this section, therefore the definition found in Section 5 The Robot applies. The definition for SHOOTING MECHANISM is a subset of MECHANISM in general.

Clearly this applies to rollers, belts, etc used to pick up the balls that could be reversed to release the balls - they impart a dynamic impulse to the ball, so they are a shooter.

However, this would not apply to a trap door MECHANISM. That does not impart any force to the ball - gravity does that. Gravity doesn't qualify as a MECHANISM under Section 5 because it is not a COTS or assembly of COMPONENTS. So any aiming extension (fold down door, etc) that directs the balls toward the corner goal should be allowed, provided that the balls are only rolling downward.

This is supported in Q&A http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=429 (previously quoted in this thread) because of the warning about becoming a wedge. In answering this question, the GDC implied that the ramp might be outside the original footprint, thus the warning about <R04>. If the ramp MECHANISM had to stay entirely within the original footprint, there would be no wedging possible, unless the ramp was designed as a leading edge with no bumper.

Even a dumper hopper, as shown at kickoff, does not fall into this category. While the MECHANISM moves, it is gravity that imparts the final impulse, not the hopper. The raising of the hopper is no different than any other MECHANISM that lifts balls from the floor - it imparts potential energy to the balls in raising them, but does not deliver a final dynamic impulse.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

We weren't the only ones. The linked post contains a Q&A posted prior to the one that inspired this thread. We as with several other teams saw items in the Q&A headed in a certain direction and ASKED QUESTIONS to get legitimate answers from the GDC rather than go with something that might violate the rule. Be glad you learned about this now rather than at your first regional and where you would be prevented from competing. In the real world requirements change and you have to adapt, that's all this is. You should have reached the same conclusions we did if you read the Q&A. All 177 did was to ask the question and propse what we thought was a reasonable solution. The GDC disagreed with us so we changed our design to meet their requirements. The difference is we (and about 5 other teams if read the Q&A) asked and wanted it in a team update, because there are people who don't read the Q&A and will miss something this significant.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...2&postcount=52

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I feel that there is more of an impact than the GDC expected by this new "definition". There still is a chance for a change imo. If you look back to the 2002 game, the rules about the "tether" changed hourly...

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

While I'm still bothered by the fact that they are defining rolling as throwing, I'll get over it. This did cause us to change our design, but a new solution was reached within 30-45 minutes. It helps that we are behind and have not begun to install any of this mechanism yet, but the parts that are made can be adapted.

Everyone has now been in FIRST for a minimum of 4 weeks. Everyone has been given an interesting challenge that requires interesting and innovative solutions. This little problem should be viewed no differently. Think of it as a microcosm of the entire FIRST build season. If you have a finished robot, do not view this problem as a reason to have to start all over. It affects ONE area of your robot and while it will likely require at least some parts to be remade, there is plenty of time to do so.

The hopper/dumper issue is a tricky one...while the ball is relying on gravity to get to the goal, gravity is not allowed to act unless the hopper is tilted or a door is open. Therefore, IMHO, if you have a door that opens UP and never touches the ball on its way out, you'd be fine...but if you have a door that opens down and the ball rolls over the door on its way out or the hopper itself tips (like in the animation), it would be deemed illegal.

Kev

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

yeah i really think that this should have been done earlier because it does affect our design and considering there are only 2 weeks left they should have just left it as it was

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I caution everyone not to expect the same change in definition as in 2002. The rules committee has a couple more years of experience and I would hope that they have an answer ready for the first questionable mechanism. It was unfortunate that the tether rule caused such a ruckus in 2002 but others soon copied the tape rule tether and the competition continued. If the answer this year is that your mechanism is illegal, will you be able to bring it back to within the rules?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

With our current design, which we were almost done with, we would not be able to make it legal without HIGHLY modifying the design. With these modifications, the robot will become less effective and more complex. We originally had a simple and highly effective design that did not break any rules, but yesterday, we find out that the GDC considered what we have illegal. We were well ahead of where we usually where, but now we must go back to the drawing board unless the definition in team update #6 is modified (which I sure hope it is)

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

*Breathes sigh of relief!"

Few, I thought my team was in trouble... now I'm glad we had that argument when designing the "shooter" two weeks ago (I lost the argument, good thing too!)

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

If the balls fall straight down I see no problem. If however they change direction to move horizontal to the ground, a mechanism (ramp) was use to move the balls. Also if you have a conveyor belt that when it rounds the top or eventually goes slower than the force of gravity, does this now become legal.

Everything can come into question. Legally every point can be debated. I sat with Tristan Lall one night and we got into debating the meaning of one word and how it completely changes the meaning. I hope that we have not come down to that.Let's follow the rules and stop trying to find a way around then to justify ourselves.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I don't think anyone is trying to get around the rules, necessarily. I think the discussion and debates over the meaning of words and rules was from more of a defensive standpoint. I would much rather try and find an easy, legal fix to the legality of our design rather than try to lawyer our way out of it, or have to go through a total redesign.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Do you really think that FIRST would consider a ramped ball outlet a wedge? It might technically qualify as one according to their definition but if said ramp is only deployed to empty balls into the corner goals, and is not deployed in any other part of the arena, will this be allowed? It might be up to the refs to decide this, but it seems that many teams have been thinking of a ramped ball outlet and the wedge rule really changes the possibilities of emptying balls via gravity into the corner goals. Can someone QandA this?