![]() |
Re: <R12>
The 72" rule is not an unreasonable restriction and may help you to a more stable arm design.
|
Re: <R12>
Quote:
|
Re: <R12>
Quote:
|
Re: <R12>
i think this rule is good, arms could get out of control...but then again this is FIRST :-P
|
Re: <R12>
Quote:
|
Re: <R12>
Quote:
FIRST will continue searching for rules and procedures to keep us from hurting ourselves. However, none of this will substitute for judicious application of common sense. |
Re: <R12>
Quote:
|
Re: <R12>
Quote:
If a team were to design a robot with an arm that was mechanically capable of exceeding the limit, but either programatically limited the horizontal extension of the arm or trained their operators to always stay within the limit, it wouldn't appear to be a violation of <R12>. |
Re: <R12>
Quote:
|
Re: <R12>
Quote:
|
Re: <R12> 72" x 72" Size Restriction
I've been doing a little trig, and a little Paint.
![]() The square is the bounding box, the rectangle is the robot. The diagonal of the box is 72√2, the length of the robot is 38, and the wasted part of the diagonal in the lower left is 14. As such, I calculate that an object of negligible width can protrude (72√2)-38-14 = 49.8 inches from the front of a standard size robot. Is this consistent with our current interpretation? Does this make sense in the spirit of the rule? |
Re: <R12> 72" x 72" Size Restriction
Quote:
It will be interesting to see how this is handled in the updates and the Q&A. It won't be officially answered anywhere else. (PS, Good to see ya again Joey!) |
Re: <R12> 72" x 72" Size Restriction
That whole line was super confusing . As far as I understand we can only transform in width and length in the home zone but when we're out on the field we can go as high as we want within the restriction of the cieling. Is that what everyone else got?
|
Re: <R12> 72" x 72" Size Restriction
Quote:
|
Re: <R12> 72" x 72" Size Restriction
I'm leaning toward jgannon's interpretation. I've already posted the question to the Q&A, so we'll see what the official word is.
I'm for jgannon's interpretation because BillP's reading means that the front and back of the robot is arbitrarily defined by someone other than the team. In that case specifically to the team's disadvantage. At the very least, the team should be able to decide which way is what. Saying that it would be okay on a round robot is just semantics and silliness. What if I have slightly bowed out plexi on all sides of my robot? There's no flat surface to attach the axes to there either. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:00. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi