<R11> Craziness!!!
 

Does anyone else think this rule is as game changing as me? This rule scares me more then requiring us to use Rover Wheels. No playing position!!!! come on FIRST you already restricted our sizes with this giant control system, we don't need this. I'm sure there is a better way to prevent trailer defence!!

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

I must say that I too hate this rule, although it is a necessary one. FIRST is probably limiting the size because they do not want any protruding parts from a robot that could get entangled with another bot in a high speed collision. An arm extending from your robot is more of a javelin at high speeds. :eek:

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

That is something I would atest to also. In the kickoff they "raced" the robots across the field and by the end of the entire length they were going no faster then a double Toughbox geared down robot on carpet. And form what I see in past years of FRC I don't think you can say that there have never been no-holds-bar collisions before. The collisions may be a little less expected and more frequent but I believe at a much lower speed.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

By "need this" I assume you mean you feel it's unfair? Every game is different. There seem to be parts of this one that are very different. So what? We're here for the collective challenge, right?

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

That is a very good point, but I don't think anyone will stay untouched long enough to reach speeds that could even conceivably be considered dangerous.

R11 in my book falls right in line with G14, I at first enjoyed the idea of a near frictionless surface but knowing we can't have any arm to easily dump the balls or any expansion at all is just frustrating and stifling. This rule basically says everyone build a similar looking robot and see who has the best "payload specialist"...Who knows someone might come up with a crazy plan that works, just my initial thoughts.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

R11...thats the one that says that the robot cannot extend out beyond the regulation dimensions of the bot at any time (not just at the start of the match)?
if so then yes i agree! total madness! no extendable arms or devices! that threw a wrench in the gears of several of our plans.

some of the rules this year seem to be a little too confining.
lets hope that next year is better

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

This is not a correct reading of the rule. Playing configurations ARE allowed, and may be different from the starting configuration.

They simply must stay within a 28"x38"x60" box. If you want to reach outside your robot, then the robot must be less than 28"x38"x60" to start with.

I seem to recall there was a similar rule in '06 and it worked out just fine. (Those who think all the robots end up "looking the same" with these restrictions should check out the Aim High -- Behind the Design book. If you think the '06 robots all "looked the same" then perhaps we were looking at different things. I saw a great deal of variety in those designs.)

Jason

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

Or maybe its just uping your thinking level, i like the rule, it changes the game completely

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

Usually I do take this opinion on matters of rules that "Everyone has to follow it, therefore it is inherently a justified rule" However in this case the rule pretty much bogs you down to a single main pick up method of a ground roller. and a single expulsion method of a shooter.

In my mind's eye I see 80% of robots being some form of this:

http://team254.bcp.org/2006r.jpg

I hope they change this rule in a quick manner because as an integral rule effecting design if they wait a week or two then there is no point as most designs will be solidified.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

in 2006 my team had a drawbridge type design for dumping our hopper into the side goals, so we definatly exceeded the 28x39x60 legally.

And while it is just a small tidbit, because the sizes do not change from before the bell to after the bell there is no "Playing configuration" but yes you can design a smaller base that allows you to reach in front of it with a device. Although FIRST arguably put a requirement on our base sizing with they new larger control system.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

We're here for a challenge so we can create innovative solutions to the problems we're given. But this game eliminates anything that would attempt to give u a frictional advantage over others and therefore instead of challenging us DISCOURAGES us from thinking of ways to get around it. I've always thought there was a fine line between solving your challenges and breaking the intent of the rule that poses the challenge.

<R11>At the start of, and during, the MATCH the ROBOT shall fit within the dimensions listed below:
Maximum
Width
28 inches (71.12cm)
Maximum
Depth
38 inches (96.52cm)
Maximum
Height
60 inches (152.40cm)
Maximum
Weight
120 pounds (54.43Kg)

And yes I'm also looking forward to next year as I believe this game will be too slow and too constrained to be fun except in the high levels of competitive play such as Einstein or IRI.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

Just because you haven't thought of a way to get frictional advantages doesn't mean other teams aren't thinking about that very thing right now. FIRST gave some pretty strong clues by publishing the coefficients of friction... static inline is 20% higher than dynamic and transverse is almost twice that of the inline.

Go back to that first line of your post and apply that positive spirit to this challenge. You might be amazed what you can come up with.

Jason

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

I am not so convinced about that. If you look at the dimensions of the trailer, it should be perfectly feasible to do some sort of a dump rather than a shoot for ball expulsion.
As for pickup, I was thinking about rollers even before I knew about this rule, so I don't have another solution in mind right now. I am sure it is out there somewhere though.

I do have to agree that this rule seems a little confining, and I am not a huge fan of the increased human player involvement. R11 does seem pretty crazy, but it is workable if you are creative.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

And the entanglement concern is a very real one. On the regolith two robots won't have the traction to pull themselves apart.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

I think this rule makes the game more exicting. I also think that your going to see alot robots like 2006 aim high robots. My team is think like a design of a aim high robot.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

While I don't want to effect any designing ideas, Having a dumping designs that utilizes gravity to dispose of balls would require that you store balls above the 36" lowest end of the trailer limiting your storage to the top 24 inches.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

I believe a good part of this is the fact that they expect teams to lose control of their robots every now and then.

Do you want a robot sliding out of control towards the edge of the field with a 5-foot long manipulator sticking off of it?

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

Didn't a similar rule exist with Aim High, a game which also had a somewhat similar goal? Wasn't there quite a bit of robot diversity that year?

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

Preface: Imagine me being contrary!

Personally, I think <R11> is the single best rule in the manual. This creates a challenge we haven't really seen before (Aim High had a little wiggle room) that I believe will create a plethora of designs and functions. This forces teams to create elegant and efficient designs, and pushes the inventive envelope.
Think of 2007. That game was the antithesis of 2009 - teams created huge, delicate manipulators that were protected (overbearingly so - ?) by the rules. Most of the robots there were carbon copies of each other, with only a few exceptions.
Every offseason, FIRST participants clamor for a new game, one with new and distinct challenges, the likes of which they have not seen. Well, here it is! (At least they're not making us climb Regolith ramps! :eek: )

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

You are the second one to bring this up so I went and found the 2006 rule.

The shooter mechanism must remain within the original starting dimensions of 28 in (711 mm) by 38 in (965 mm) by 60 in (1,524 mm) tall.

AND

No part of the robot may ever extend more than 60 in (1,524 mm) above the floor. If a robot is more than 60 in (1,524 mm) high, and it shoots a ball or blocks a ball from being shot, a 5 point penalty per ball will be assessed.

so you still had outside the 28x38 with anything except a shooting device. I would be ok with a rule like this.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

I have to agree with you.

At first I thought of all these arms and things to pickup, shoot. throw, dump, etc. and almost all involved things that left the "box". This forces you to think outside ("inside"?) the box, because the obvious way is impossible. You have 2 choices: make a square herding bot or rethink how you have done things in the past (especially different from last year, for people who haven't been around since those other games, as I personally have only been through Overdrive).

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

i really dont believe that the demention perameters are unreasonable. i mean, come on really!? just keep your designs simple and elegant and you will see that the demention perameters are not constranining.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

This is not a matter of me being unable to think of legal ideas, or using the larger playing configuration of the past as a crutch, rather that it does removes several designs that implement this feature and cuts down to the few that don't. Just to throw out a few that would use a larger playing config:

A tube which when filed with balls is extended like an arm to quickly drop all balls directly over an opponent's trailer

A Hungry Hungry Hippo style ball pickup

A javelin type pickup

A javelin type disposal

A simple claw and arm

and many more.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

And?

There is no rule that says every robot has to be different. And just because each robot looks the same, that means that the matches will be decited by the internal workings of the robot, the drivers and the human players...which is just as interesting.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

r 11 is not correctly read..in their video it shows a robot with an arm...

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

Last year the video also showed a robot breaking the height barrier in the opponent's home stretch which was against the rules. Don't read too much into the video, it's meant to show the game not to show you every rule.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

I completely disagree. There are many different creative and effective robot designs that can fit inside the "box". Designing within limits is part of the challenge, and a big part of real-world engineering.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

I've seen a lot of people over react to this rule. It's just another design constraint. Everyone's response to the wheels is just "well, it's part of the game" and it is, so is R11.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

We are definitely reading the rule properly. If you re-watch the video I assure you that none of the robots break the volume.

After a comb-through closest situation I could find to a <R11> penalty would be in this picture

http://img380.imageshack.us/my.php?i...icture3mj1.png

Here a robot swings its arm to launch a ball and the arm swings outside it's base area. However as you can see throughout the movie this robot has a square base meaning that it left extra room along its front to allow for this motion.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

If you decide to pursue this idea and would like assistance please feel free to contact any 1529 member. Our 2008 robot borrowed this design.

Re: <R11> Craziness!!!
 

Actually, that is not quite correct. The arm on the robot in question in the animation never extends beyond the vertical projection of the Bumper Perimeter Polygon of the robot. There is a wrist on the arm that allows the hand to rotate up, thereby shortening the effective total tip length of the arm as it swings through the vertical arc. The base of the robot is also not square - it extends to the permitted 28 x 38 inches. I am quite certain of this. :)

-dave



.