New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Has this Q & A made anyones designs illegal?

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


This new clarification complicates a lot of things. We didn't think there was anything illegal about our design until about 30 seconds ago, so now we must redesign, and we only have 2 weeks left!! :(

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

this rule does not change our design because our harvester (picking balls up from the floor) is within the 28x38 design criteria. so, we can also deliver balls to the corner goals without the problem of being outside these limits to be considered a shooter mechanism.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I just read rule S03

<S03> The SHOOTING MECHANISM must remain inside the ROBOT - 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. A ROBOT that violates this
rule will be considered unsafe per <S01>.

Reversing a roller outside the starting dimensions was not considered "throwing" in the design process of our team, so we never thought twice about it. Also rule S01 states

<S01> If at any time a ROBOT’s operation or design is deemed unsafe by the head referee, it will receive a 10-
point penalty and be disabled for the remainder of the match. If the safety violation is due to the ROBOT
design, the head referee has the option to not allow the ROBOT back onto the field unless the design has
been corrected. An example of unsafe operation is repeatedly throwing balls off the field at audience
members, media personnel, judges, referees, etc. An example of an unsafe design is a SHOOTING
MECHANISM that has a large mass that is stopped abruptly at the end of travel and is at risk of breaking
off the ROBOT and becoming a projectile.

Would this mean if it wasn't considered "dangerous" by the head referee, you could you use it? It also says due to robot design, the head ref would have to consider it "unsafe"

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Yes, but is it "shielded such that the mechanism cannot make contact with other ROBOTs", per rule <S03>?
I think that's the tricky part of the rule.

We have some redesigning to do, I think.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Being the team that posted the question to the Q&A, we had to redesign part of our robot. I think the new solution we can up with is actually superior to our old design, but it forced us to go back to the drawing board.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

yes, our harvester is shielded so it does not make contact with other robots. so we are legal, right? i just want to make sure so we do not have to re-design again.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

So do you think that this applies to doors that open out (hinged at bottom)? There is no power in the door...just gravity.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I'm really hoping it doesn't, because that is probably what will have to change too...

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I think I am confused about shielding. How can you shield a front loader that also might push balls back out and still collect balls? How do you shield the shooter but still allow shooting?

Wouldn't a ball collector low in front also allow soomeones corner of their robot to enter the collection area? I've seen pictures of robots with open areas low in front, where it looks like another robot could fit a corner into. Who gets the penalty then?

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Carolyn Hinckley

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Guys, reread the first Q&A.
That device would not be a legal shooter . That means you cannot shoot balls rapidly out of it.
If you're not, you can still extend outside the 28x38 (or whatever) starting bounds.
So, your shouldn't have to redesign that much. Just lower the speed of your mechanism. I think FIRST needs to define a minimum velocity that defines a device as a shooter.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

They did. They very clearly said that no matter the exit velocity of the balls, it is "not a legal shooting mechanism because it is outside of the 28 x 38 inch allowable starting envelope."

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I think FIRST needs to clarify it more then, because my interpretation of what they're saying is "if you're not using it as a shooter, it's fine". I would assume shooting would be more classified for the center goal. As per the rules, the center goal is the only goal that requires balls to be "shot" into, so FIRST calling it a "shooter" in my mind references more the center goals.
Perhaps I'm just understanding it wrong.
How is it a shooting mechanism if it slowly releases balls?
I think FIRST needs to further clarify this and possibly reconsider to allow teams who aren't pummeling balls out at 12 m/s to dump this way. Teams have safely used these mechanisms in the past, why stop a team from doing so if they're releasing them at a safe speed?
I seriously think FIRST should make a minimum velocity to classify a device as a shooter. If it's fast enough, it must abide by the shooted design rules. If it's under, it falls under the normal rules for robot components.
Just my $.02
edit: Unless you're referencing another Q&A post, they didn't say anything about "no matter the speed of the ball".

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

If the mechanism can eject a ball, it is considered a shooter. See this question/answer. The velocity of the ball while being ejected does not matter.

-dave

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I think this may be another "the intent of the rule" problem. A door for a ball leaving a basket isn't a shooter unless it is powered out of the basket. But if the basket has a powered ouput...it becomes a shooter.

Kind of like a stack being a stack being a stack, or a ball being "contained" in a goal.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I really wish this new definition was released earlier...I think it will affect a lot of teams. This will make the next two week period very crammed for time, especially for those teams that have already finished their robot/ are close to finishing.

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.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I can see your point regarding pushing a ball with a part of your robot that expands beyond the starting dimensions. In essence, if the robot did not eject the ball, then the "any parts of the robot that contact the ball while and/or after this impulse is delivered" does not come into play. Can we assume that since gravity does not appear to count as ejecting the ball, then this same logic applies to a ramp?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I would recommend the Q&A for your answers. The way I read the rules, if energy is use to eject the ball from your robot (Gravity is stored energy) and the ball touches the gate that is outside of the 28 x 38, then it is an illegal shooter. If the ball drops straight down it is not being ejected but dropped. If the ball moves forward into the goal from inside the robot, it is then being "shot" as something is causing the ball to move forward out of the robot.

If the robot pushes balls into the goal then it is not shooting. If however the pushing device is a flipper that moves independently of the rest of the robot then I would call that a shooting device.

All this is only my humble opinion and should be followed up with a proper response from the Q&A.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Based on the Q&A Collin linked, it should be legal. Also, as said ramp is only deployed when up against the goal, it should also comply with <R04>

Edit: Also, I intend on consulting the Q&A as soon as I can, but our sponsor with the login information is going to be attending a conference in Austin for the first half of this week.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...highlight=ramp


Q: Is a ramp which would allow balls to roll off the robot (and hopefully toward the corner goals) considered a shooter? The only force causing the balls to move would be gravity.

A: This ramp would not be considered a shooter, but be sure it complies with <R04>.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I totally agree with this. I believe including the real definition of what is shooting and what isnt shooting in a Team Update this late in the build should be further discussed by the entire GDC. It was very unclear what 'shooting' actually was in the begining of the build, and I'm sure not many (beside team 177, thank you so much..) teams thought rolling the balls at a very low speed (< 3 ft/s) would be considered shooting. So far, ~30% of the people that voted designs have been affected.

Week 2, big deal. Week 5, something needs to happen.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

How would you go about asking for a change though, is it something easy to do? Also its about 30% just here on Chief Delphi, imagine all the teams who are not active on this forum and/or don't check the Q&A all the time.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Ok so in the game animation...
Red harvester robot, in auton. it drives to the corner and dumps its hopper. Is that legal now?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

That is ILLEGAL according Team Update #6. That mechanism was legal up until Team Update 6 was released.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

^ really good point.
I voted *no* because I didn't get to the point in the thread that applied to shooters. It seemed to apply to corner-goal loaders.
So, change my little percentage to yes.
This completely changes our guiding system design.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

So from what i understand, which could be very little, any robot that has a roller that sucks balls in and, when ran in reverse sucks balls out would be illegal?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

If it was at all outside of the starting envelope than yes

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I'd read this to mean that a flipper, ramp, or other mechanism that can be in the bumper zone and might contact another robot must always remain within 10 degrees of vertical.

As written, the rule provides referees a method to deal with infractions that they observe during a match.

Since this is a robot rule, it may also be policed during robot inspection. I hope that FIRST will provide some clarification to teams and to volunteers so that this rule is interpreted and enforced uniformly at all events.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Wait, how is that illegal? The other Q&A said that any system that depends solely on gravity to move the ball is okay.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Well, if a team is planning a fold-out ramp, I don't think they have to worry. As long as the ramp is only deployed at the goal, when attempting to score, there should be no issue, as it could not interfere with another robot. However, drives around with said ramp deployed at all times, it would likely be a violation.

Edit: I believe it would be illegal because the robot is giving an impulse to the balls by moving the hopper. Seems absurd when the update from FIRST causes their animation to be illegal...

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

But it's not really giving it an impulse. Unless the hopper violently flops over and sends the balls flying out, they are simply being released, and moved by gravity.

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?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

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
 

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
 

If they are outside the original footprint, they are illegal

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

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

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

OK. Now I think I understand your point. Are you saying that a mechanism or appendage can extend into the bumper zone with surfaces that are more than 10 degrees from vertical and not violate <R04> per se, but that same mechanism or appendage (having been passed by the inspector) might later be determined by a referee to have become a wedge, based on how it interacts with other robots?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

For the record, each of the 4 Q&A answers that I cited were specifically rulled on based on <R04> NOT <S03>. They become a wedge regardless of wheather or not they are a shooter.

I am probably not going to make many friends saying this but I don't understand the confusion. Rule <S03> has been in the rule books from the time we received the rules on January 7th. It HAS NOT CHANGED but merely been brought to light due to the recent Q&A quoted above. Our team read <S03> and <R04> and understood them to mean exactly how the FIRST Q&A clarifies them. It doesn't matter if you are "shooting" at the low goals at a low velocity or at the high goal at 12 m/s it is still shooting. The "shooting mechanism" of a gun includes not only the breach and chamber but the barrel. In the case of the questioned 2004 Team 33 bot the lower goal shooter mechanism is clearly outside the 28" x 38" starting footprint and would thus violate the <S03> rule this year. I agree with Madison that it seems that FIRST is starting to force the GP issue this year with these rules which is unfortunate because I think it limits some of the creativity. To answer my own question posted above: Yes, I think FIRST wants all the bots to be square boxes 28" x 38" or less from the floor to 8.5" up. They are also pushing the standard bumper design this year and I wonder if they will be mandatory next year? Wouldn't that just kill the creativity of any not squarish bots. They already killed the cool "flop over bots" this year. FIRST is starting to head in a direction of limiting more and more what teams can and can't do sort of like NASCAR. NASCAR has so many rules now that all of the cars a pretty much exactly the same. I don't know if FIRST views the need for these rules as in the mind of "safety" or "fairness" but either way it is unfortunate.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

I believe this boils down to whether this is an inspector rule or a referee rule. Will a bot that passes inspection get penalized on the field by a referee or will the inspectors rule against a design and the bot never even make it to the field. I am thinking these are inspectors rules but maybe everyone else thinks they are referee rules.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Agreed I was just trying to make a point that they also violate the <S03> shooter rule even though it was not brought up.

To comment on how this thread started. The confusion many teams like my own had with the shooter rule is that in the original version of the rule the word throw was used so we believed rolling the ball would be legal. We and several other teams who manipulated small balls in 2004 used a mechanism that was similar to what we wanted to do this year. Based on previous experience we thought this would be legal and therefore when the Q&A started giving responses counter to these items we were compelled to ask a direct question citing a specific example of what we thougt would be allowed. We were wrong and forced to redesign.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

This is probably the relevant statement in this thread. The inspection sheet has not been published yet.

"FIRST will post a copy of the Official Robot Inspection Sheet in approximately the first week of February."

My question is: the second week in February = approximately the first week of February?

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Rule R04 specifically refers to the potential to penalize, disable or disqualify a machines -- things that can take place only during a match, only by a referee's discretion.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

<R04> is a robot rule. All robot rules are subject to inspection:

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

Yeah, I think that that is not the intent of the rule, but we still have to follow it. This makes the reversing of any harvester illegal.

Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
 

No, this only makes the reversing of a harvester outside of the original envelope illegal. A harvester INSIDE the envelope is still legally reversable.