Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

I don't think this is a very enforceable rule...

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

I wouldn't take that mantra to heart when designing your bot there are enough irate Engineers/Designers/Caders out there that will make sure it gets enforced and I'm one of them lol. I'm pretty sure this rule and this rule alone is what woody meant by simplicity on the other side of complexity.

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

This is an interesting interpretation that I haven't heard before. I can envision some scenarios where a robot could violate <R16> due to contact with another robot and not be penalized. I wouldn't say that this is a blanket rule... even if the other team tipped you, breaking <R16> might have been avoidable (much in the same way that you could potentially avoid a clockwise crossing, even if you were bumped). There are going to be some very interesting judgment calls for the referees this year.

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

If, based on the explanation in the FIRST Q&A, the parenthetic example is NOT the rule.

The rule is the part of the sentence prior to the cylinder example.


Measured horizontally includes all orientations of the robot - upright and fallen over.

Some infractions during the game will be obvious (fallen over while fully extended) - while some will be very difficult to determine without replicating the exact orientation after the match.

While the geometry I have been working on, is capable of reaching beyond the 80 inches - we will not allow that to occur by limiting the rotation of the joints using pots and mechanical stops.

If you have a similar situation, would you demonstrate your maximum reach to the head ref during the practice matches - in order to avoid any issues later during the matches or would you be afraid to bring additional attention to your robot? Meaning, the ref then tells the other refs to "keep an eye on that one".

Mike

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

Mike,

Your robot would probably draw attention on the track anyway if it looks like it was approaching 80 inches. In that case, if the head ref. had prior knowledge he/she could immediately say, I looked at that robot in the pits and they demonstrated their hard stops and programing to me and it does not exceed 80 inches, let's move on. Getting a quick definative answer would probably end any suspicions on the spot. I would like to see a range of motion test done while being inspected. That way the only dimensional rule that the refs. would have to worry about would be when a robot tips over. Not sure how practical implementing a test like that would be though.

EDIT: In the pits or during the practice matches.

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

How about if it was enforced in the same way that the ball velocity rule was in 2006? Assume that everyone is following the rules, but if a referee has doubts as to whether a team is complying, they can request a demonstration before the robot is allowed to compete again. I'd restrict it to just refs being allowed to request this (as opposed to 2006, where anyone was allowed to complain), but this seems like a much more time-efficient way to examine only the borderline cases and flagrant violators.

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

The fact that a robot can stretch to over 80" doesn't mean they actually will. A team who knows they have a robot that in certain configurations could stretch over 80" will take pains so as to not do it. It may be because of the hardstops or control restraints imposed by teams such as 47, or because of the uncanny ability of certain drivers to never extend the arm to full length when it is horizontal, only when vertical or on an angle. Nonetheless, until a robot actually does extend over 80" there will be no penalty call to make.

Ah, but there was a radar gun or something similar in the pit inspection station where all teams had to demonstrate their shooter. The ref could ask for a remeasurement, just as he could on size or weight, at any time. But it was demonstrated at least once (provided the equipment was working).

The GDC could require a demonstration on horizontal size during inspection. However, that still doesn't mean the robot actually will extend that far while on the track.

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

but how do you plan on enforcing it?, are you going to run out on to the field with tape measures everytime your get suspicious about a bot?

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

bumpers only need to cover 2/3 of the robot, one can simply not put them in the front. i highly doubt u'll be hit from the front since all robots are moving counterclockwise. therefore, you have 38 inches of the robot plus 42 for an arm

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

That's how we enforced the 72" rule last year... I expect that we'll do the same again.

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

You forgot width in your calculations. The maximum dimension will likely be across the diagonal of your robot - including the side bumpers.

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

wait so this rule is fully extended diagonally wise and not length wise?? im not sure i understand

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

the rule says "While in the PLAYING CONFIGURATION, the ROBOT may expand up to a maximum horizontal dimension of 80 inches"

This robot is less than 80" from the center of the rear bumper, to the end of the arm.

But it is more than 80" from the corner of the bumper, to the end of the arm

This robot should not pass inspection, as I understand the rule.

(although the drawing here shows the "cylinder", not the actual measurement from the corner of the arm to the opposite corner of the bumper, which is the limiting dimension)

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

I printed your diagram and believe that the robot would be allowed. I marked the longest lenght I could get across the circle on a piece of paper and then compared that to the horizontal distance between opposite corners of the robot and manipulator. It appear to be the same, meaning that the corners were 80 inches appart. What happens when I do that is that center of the cylinder is centered between the two points you are measuring. The interpretation does not say that no other part of the robot can be outside of an 80" diameter cylinder when measuring. The measurement is point to point. To apply my understanding of the interpretation I think you should place the center of a 160" cylinder on any part of your robot, if any other part of your robot sticks out of that cylinder, you have violated the rule.

EDIT: My analysis assumes that the cylinder is 80" since that is the way most of the references to R16 have been in CD, that the robot must fit inside an 80" cylinder.

EDIT: Thinking way to hard about the diagram, NO, THE ROBOT WOULD NOT PASS, per written word the robot drawn is more that 80" between the corners and would not pass. However, visualizing a 160" cylinder would still hold as a better way to apply the 80" rule. Your diagram did give me the idea of the 160" cylinder.

Re: Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.
 

The way i understand the rule is as follows and this the way i explained it to the team: If you were to place a 80" diameter coke can, with the bottom removed, over the robot, would the can sit entirely on the ground ground or would part of it sit on your robot. If it sits on the robot, then we are breaking the size rule. The thumbnail is question would only be legal if it was oriented so that it's largest length was 80" and no other part of the robot was outside of the cylinder.