Chief Delphi - New rule Clarification changes plans

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - New rule Clarification changes plans (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43369)

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rule R04

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.

Emphasis is my own. Ball manipulation devices deployed outside the original footprint are exempt from this rule by default, though may be penalized if they are seen to be used as such.

I'm of the opinion that a ramp is not a 'shooting mechanism' and remains legal.

FIRST was doing great, but it seems like they actually try to architect bizarre responses to straightforward questions for fear of the potential, "but you said our specific design was legal on Q&A" event at the competitions. Instead of following through on their own common sense method of interpretation, they're the ones trying to act like lawyers.

I wonder what it'd take to implement some sort of pre-inspection process that would allow teams to share specific information about designs that FIRST then keeps on file and, in return, FIRST gives preliminary, conditional approval of the design.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Madison, this is exactly the discussion I was trying to start a week ago in this thread with this post and you were apparently the only person that took note of it. From early on our team was worried about the wedge rule and the definition of a "shooter". Unless I am not understanding something FIRST has not "changed" any rule. They have "clarified" that just because you are shooting at a lower velocity at the lower goals the "mechanism" is still considered a shooter. My origonal question still stands. Are ALL the bots going to be square boxes from 0 to 8.5" up???

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen P

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?

I don't have specific direction on this from FIRST (yet). I was simply saying that, until I get another interpretation from FIRST, I would read <R04> as disallowing any surface in the bumper zone that is more than 10 degrees from vertical. So I would flag any such surface as an issue that the team would have to correct before their robot could pass inspection.

Of course, FIRST could direct me and other lead robot inspectors to use some judgment as to whether a particular surface that is more than 10 degrees from vertical 'might push against another robot'. I would not like to be in that position, since my judgment might differ from that of another lead robot inspector at another event. Uniform application of the rules at all events should be an important consideration in whatever FIRST decides to do about this.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

I've got the same issue with <R04> as Richard; the much-vaunted common-sense approach suggests that we apply a reasonable interpretation of the rule, and yet, it requires us (as officials) to determine what "might push against another robot". If I were to take a literalist approach, it would be useless (encompassing far too much to be practical, e.g. the radii of the bumpers themselves); on the other hand, if I apply my judgement, it will inevitably be different from others' appraisal of the same design. Looking at my own team's robot, I can concieve of many possible opposing robots that might contact it at an angle greater than 10° from vertical. And yet, the robot is positively slab-sided, and can hardly be considered a wedging threat.

What is clear, however, is what's going to come of this, absent a clearly worded and well-thought-out clarification: different teams will interpret this rule differently, and all but the most blatant violations will be permitted to play, either on the grounds that they were allowed at another event (which, technically, isn't relevant unless the inspectors want it to be, since there is no rule or universally accepted practice for applying precedents), or on compassionate grounds, because it would be rather impractical to make them all attach extraneous vertical surfaces to every exposed aspect of their robot.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Emphasis is my own. Ball manipulation devices deployed outside the original footprint are exempt from this rule by default, though may be penalized if they are seen to be used as such.

If they are outside the original footprint, they are illegal

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryV1188

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.

Let me counter your nitpicking with more nitpicking :) (I mean no offense by saying your “nitpicking”, but that’s what we are all doing here)

Here is my take on the whole hopper with door thing:
Ok, so let’s say the door is within the bounding box, but your hopper is a big V that at its top is much wider than the bounding box. Without that hopper, the ball would not be funneled down towards the door, and the balls would be on the floor, and the point becomes moot.

Remember the shooter mechanism is 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 impulse is delivered.

So, since gravity may be the final impulse that drops the ball out of the hopper, the hopper is still imparting a force and touches the ball while that force is being applied.
So in my eyes, a hopper with a door would be a shooter mechanism and must stay in the bounding box.

This should be the first YMTC of the season! XD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh Murphy

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

This is exactly like 2005 games and the robot touching the triangle before using a human or auto loading station. Throughout the season, it was never changed, everyone assumed breaking the plane would count, but that’s not what the rule said, it never changed from day one. FIRST simply reiterated what they meant in the QA

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Yes, that did happen in 2005, but that was a very simple change for almost every team. All it included (for the most part) was adding zip ties to the bottom of your robot. This new "definition" actually effects a WHOLE design or a large part of it rather than a small addition. When you've already started building, it is not something you can *easily* change. (such as the zip ties)

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by team1591

If they are outside the original footprint, they are illegal

Prove it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=292

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=501

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=482

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=547

It is pretty simple. If there are parts inside or outside of the 28" x 38" starting foot print of the robot that are between the floor and 8.5" up that are not within 10 degrees of vertical and can touch another robot it is in violation of the wedge rule <R04>. Flop down doors that can come in contact with another bot are illegal unless they are somehow shielded so that other bots can't contact the non-vertical part of the door/ramp. There is no stipulation in the rules about the "wedges" orientation. Inverted angles not within 10 degrees of vertical are still wedges.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Prove it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

I agree with your interpretation Madison. I had missed that caveat when I first read through the rules that exempts ball harvesters. If the ball harvester is also designed to be compliant when contacted I don't think that a referee would be able to defend penalizing based on the way <R04> is written.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepWater

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=292

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=501

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=482

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=547

Pretty much every device in those Q&A's already violates <S03> already and that is why they are disallowed.

The question comes into play when a ball harvester, like the picture of Team 33's 2004 robot from the Q&A this thread started with, is interacted with. At that point it comes down to the referee's interpretation of <S04>, and the various robot interaction rules.

Based on the direct answer from the GDC in the original Q&A a harvester is legal to be angled, a dump ramp is not per <R03>.

Re: <S03> - Definition of a Shooter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mechanism as shown would be a legal ball collector, but not a legal shooting mechanism because it is outside of the 28 x 38 inch allowable starting envelope. We understand your concern, but there are no exceptions to <S03>.

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

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepWater

It is pretty simple. If there are parts inside or outside of the 28" x 38" starting foot print of the robot that are between the floor and 8.5" up that are not within 10 degrees of vertical and can touch another robot it is in violation of the wedge rule <R04>. Flop down doors that can come in contact with another bot are illegal unless they are somehow shielded so that other bots can't contact the non-vertical part of the door/ramp. There is no stipulation in the rules about the "wedges" orientation. Inverted angles not within 10 degrees of vertical are still wedges.

The nice folks at FIRST need to read their own rules because that's simply not what they say. The original rule is simply chock full of really important conditional statements that they're ignoring, so I'd expect for them to change their answers to those questions or to strike out and rewrite rule R04 in the next team update. I've changed our design somewhat to ensure that the leading face of the robot is vertical or, at worst, inaccessible to other machines. Our ball dumping ramp is horizontal at 8.5" above the floor which is a bit absurd with respect to its function, but a necessary evil.

In any case, that still does not prove Team1591's assertion that ball manipulation devices deployed outside the starting footprint are illegal. Not all ball manipulation devices are wedge shaped and rule R04 is wholly separate from rules regarding the use and location of a ball manipulation device as a shooting mechanism.

I'm starting to get curious about when FIRST needed to start shoving gracious professionalism down our throats in the form of rules -- it seems to be a bit contrary to all that they've ever said about how things work.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

... I had missed that caveat when I first read through the rules that exempts ball harvesters....

I missed it, too. Can you please tell me where to look for the exemption you are referring to?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

I missed it, too. Can you please tell me where to look for the exemption you are referring to?

In my post above, http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=61, I highlighted the conditional statements in the latter half of rule R04 that indicate to me that any devices deployed outside the original footprint should be cognizant of potentially violating this rule but it is the referee's ultimate discretion as to whether such device is actually being used in violation of the rule. It reads to me as though a deployed device would need to actively engage in offensive or defensive wedging before some penalty would be assessed and that it is not illegal by its mere existence alone.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

I missed it, too. Can you please tell me where to look for the exemption you are referring to?

Note the word should in the below quote. If it was a must like in codes and standards the would have used the word shall or must. This allows you to have an angled deployed device AT YOUR OWN RISK of penalty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section 5 The Robot

<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.