Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I think it would be virtually impossible to design something that would allow the ball to fully cross the opponent's finish line (thus making it eligible to be hurdled again) and then reclaim the ball without having any part of the robot enter Q4... unless you flung it from Q3 to Q4, and put a wicked amount of backspin on it so it could roll back into Q3.
Intentionally committing penalties may cause you to receive a yellow card.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

This would probably run into 80" rule trouble as well as presenting an entanglement hazard in addition to the potential yellow card mentioned by jgannon above.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Yeah... good point on that. The work around of intentionally taking a penalty isn't really in keeping with the spirit of the rules, either, but was just something I'm throwing out there for brainstorming. Just like when a team shows up on Thursday weighing 150 pounds we all share our spare parts and tools with them to help them get back inside the weight limit, it sounds like here they need some ideas that can help them get back in compliance with G22.

What I had in mind for the first suggestion was something like the rather quick sketch I have attached here. Again, it might not be really in keeping with the spirit of the rules, given that there is a rule that pretty clearly states that robots are to proceed about the track in a counter-clockwise direction... and in this case the robot will not be "proceeding" but throwing some ideas out there is about all I can do to try and help 190 right now.

Jason

Edit: note comment below regarding diagram.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

i think that picture should say 'counter-clockwise'

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Do they really have to take a penalty? If before the leave the very first quadrant (the one they start in) they place a small four-legged object atop the lane divider (one leg in each quadrant); and then operate with the bulk of their robot remaining in that original quadrant for the rest of the game; does that allow them to be in all four quadrants at once without ever returning to a quadrant that they left sometime in the past, without ever exceeding the height limit and without ever posing an entanglement risk?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Isn't there a rule about hanging pieces of the robot from the overpass (and how it's not allowed)?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

It's definitely good that you're helping them brainstorm. The one bit that I keep getting hung up on is how to get the ball across the line from Q3 to Q4 and back to the robot without putting any part of the robot into Q4. How does the ball play into all this?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I don't think it was just good research, more importantly it was them and 2158 asking the right questions. That is exactly what the Q&A is there for: asking questions that come up during your brainstorming and getting answers from the GDC. Unfortunately, even with the Q&A, if you gamble on the very creative borderline strategies, you run the risk of them being illegal as a side effect of another rule interpretation.

Originally the rules were written in a way that 190 and many other hurdlings mechanisms would not complete valid hurdles (by most interpretations) since they were contacting the ball while crossing the finish line. Then I think there was a short time period where the interpretation was a bot could contact the ball while it was crossing, but not crossed the line. Now, a bot can continue to contact the ball while it has crossed the finish line as long as the bot hasn't crossed the finish line. Personally I like the hurdling interpretation where as you can contact the ball while it is crossing, but not crossed the finish line. I mean we are "hurdling" not "stepping over" ;)

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Maybe I've missed something... I'm not suggesting that the robot does not proceed into Q4, (althogh I think I might have misnumbered in my original post by considering the home stretch as Q-zero rather than Q-1) just that the robot enters Q4 from Q3 by crossing the opponent's finish line before crossing the quadrant line.

Mind you, now that I check thebluealliance in more detail it appears 190 may be finished for the season, making much of this hypothesizing a moot point.

Kudos to them for going with a cool idea. It is great to see teams thinking outside the box. Or, in this case, outside the quadrant!

Jason

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

How is 190 done for the season? They are A) a legacy team and B) current World Champs on Einstein. While they might need to change their strategy, they should by all means be at Champs next month.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

They are not done for the season. Thebluealliance doesn't look like it is showing teams as signed up for the championship event. The official first list does.
Besides, 190 is one of the legacy teams and has an automatic bid to the Championships every year, as well as having a bid for being 2007 World Champs.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

The mechanism should work ok as a 'normal' hurdling bot, perhaps putting up 2-3 hurdles a match without incurring the wrath of G22. (I don't know enough about the drivetrain to say that they could do much more, my guess would be that this design allows them to compromise on the speed/strength of the drivetrain.)
They do have, with their suction 'cymbal' one of the best pickup mechanisms I've seen. That thing is a beast to watch in person. Unfortunately they would have to collapse the entire thing to get under the overpass and around the track...

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

The Blue Alliance basically separates championship into 5 events (the 4 divisions and Einstein). As a result, they don't really list teams going to the championships until divisions are posted (or they start guessing them :D ) . Maybe they should have a temporary event called the Championship since we all rely on them so much now :]

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Our team (2158) was seriously considering this design during week 1 of build season, but decided against it only because we thought it would be too complex and might be hard to adhere to the 80" rule. That's why we asked the Q&A question that everyone has been referring to.

I'm still confused as to why the concept was ruled illegal by <G22>. The definition of CROSSING is that the entire robot must cross a finish line or lane marker. With 190's design, the base stays in Q1 the whole time, so it nevers crosses, correct? What am I missing?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

In my mind, at least, you're missing the fact that while the robot is in its home stretch, parts of the robot break the plane of the lane marker (which extends under the lane divider) into the previous quadrant.