Chief Delphi - 2011 Team Update #2

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - 2011 Team Update #2 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89136)

2011 Team Update #2

http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Rob...0Update_02.pdf

More minibot clarifications and the addition of pneumatic pistons and storage tanks to the list of allowable pneumatic components.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

This relaxation of the pneumatic rules makes Scott very happy!

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

I'm guessing this thread won't consist of 8 pages of complaints :)

Being able to use cylinders at our discretion is great. I'm happy. Though, I doubt my team will take advantage of the ruling.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Hmmm, can we use ANY pneumatic storage tank? I can think of some pretty huge ones that would meet the pneumatics safety requirements.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen of REX (Post 1000149)

Hmmm, can we use ANY pneumatic storage tank? I can think of some pretty huge ones that would meet the pneumatics safety requirements.

But can you spare the weight? ;)

Engineering is all tradeoffs.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1000150)

Engineering is all tradeoffs.

Trading?
What?
Stock market time! :yikes:

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1000150)

But can you spare the weight? ;)

Engineering is all tradeoffs.

I believe that if we go with pneumatics, then if we end up a few pounds under the limit... AIR TANKS!

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Oops - thanks to whoever closed my thread in the other forum; I didn't see this one when I hunted quickly - I should have searched.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1000140)

I'm guessing this thread won't consist of 8 pages of complaints.

Maybe not, but that's got to be the harshest red card ever. DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high? :eek:

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1000250)

Maybe not, but that's got to be the harshest red card ever. DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high? :eek:

I agree Gary
I think they added the language and didn't look at the penalty

The penalty SHOULD be Red Card for deploying your minibot on a different tower and a standard tower disable for starting too high...

that would be much more fitting...

I think you SHOULD get a RED CARD for trying to mess up another team's shot at the minibot by deploying on the opponent's tower.

But for a slight discretion on your own tower you should just have the tower disabled...

Much more reasonable penalty...

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1000250)

DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high? :eek:

So it's ok if a person in Track starts on a running block that's marginally too far forward?

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetraman (Post 1000271)

So it's ok if a person in Track starts on a running block that's marginally too far forward?

No, but the penalty would be the same for starting too far forward or starting too soon, wouldn't it?

If you deploy your MINIBOT early, the tower is disabled - you lose any possible race bonus points.

If you deploy too high, you are DQ'd - but presumably your alliance still gets the bonus points? The rules don't say.

They should have included "entirely below the deployment line" into <G20>, not <G21>.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetraman (Post 1000271)

So it's ok if a person in Track starts on a running block that's marginally too far forward?

No, but this is equivalent to removing the runner's score from the race (disabling the tower) as opposed to saying that all previous races are discounted because of it.

I agree that the red card is a bit harsh, perhaps we'll see this changed in the next one. Regardless, people should be designing their systems so they can't deploy above the line easily or at all, so hopefully it will be a non-issue either way.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1000250)

Maybe not, but that's got to be the harshest red card ever. DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high? :eek:

I'm with you there. I suspect that it's a mistake and will be corrected in a later update.

I'm happy that FIRST has relaxed the pneumatics rules, but I doubt our strategy is going to take advantage of them this year.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1000250)

Maybe not, but that's got to be the harshest red card ever. DQ'd for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high? :eek:

I'd say second harshest. Harshest is when you get a red card for your partner not passing inspection.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1000336)

I'd say second harshest. Harshest is when you get a red card for your partner not passing inspection.

I would have to agree with that. I still do not get that. I get that they should be inspected, but why is it the alliances responsibility?

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

I think the intent of that rule is that if the partner does not pass inspection, they must be a no-show. If the non inspected team no-shows, then you do not get a red card, but if they attempt to show to get points, then the rule thwarts that.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1000363)

I guess. I will be sure to make sure, no matter what, our alliance partners are inspected, or at least for the first 20 or so qualifications.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1000336)

I'd say second harshest. Harshest is when you get a red card for your partner not passing inspection.

To add to that,

While I agree it's harsh, and not necessary, FIRST is clearly going for the Peer Pressure approach. With this penalty, you can bet everyone on the alliance will be pressuring other teams to get inspected, and it will probably work.

Will some unfortunate teams go under because of this? Yes. However in the end it will keep this problem to a minimal.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by dag0620 (Post 1000370)

Will some unfortunate teams go under because of this? Yes.

Only if they're stupid enough to let a non inspected team try to show up for a match.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

I personally think it's an overreaction to a case that happened last year where a robot that didn't set wheels onto the field ranked in the top 8 for selections.

Personally, dishing out an automatic red card to any team that wasn't inspected would be enough. But to penalize partners...

I agree on the intent; the letter doesn't quite match the intent, though. I'd agree on the peer pressure: either you pressure them to pass inspection, or you pressure them to stay far, far away from the field until they do.

P.S. If you are thinking about volunteering to inspect, do it. When there are few inspectors at an event, inspection takes forever and some teams may miss a match through no fault of their own. I think the AZ backlog last year cleared around opening ceremonies, after having an extra half-hour the night before with more inspectors to clear the line. There were still a couple of teams who had had major issues clearing by lunchtime, but that's "almost normal", and the issues were becoming more minor.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1000401)

P.S. If you are thinking about volunteering to inspect, do it. When there are few inspectors at an event, inspection takes forever and some teams may miss a match through no fault of their own. I think the AZ backlog last year cleared around opening ceremonies, after having an extra half-hour the night before with more inspectors to clear the line. There were still a couple of teams who had had major issues clearing by lunchtime, but that's "almost normal", and the issues were becoming more minor.

Having been an inspector for the last 2 years(2009: CT, 2010: CT, WPI, BOS, CMP), I fully agree with you. Last year, I was asked if I was available for the Boston regional, while at WPI, because of a shortage they had. All worked out fine, but I could imagine how horribly things could've gone :ahh:

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

I'm sorry for this being so off topic, but what are the requirements for volunteering at a regional?

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Formerly Famous (Post 1000508)

I'm sorry for this being so off topic, but what are the requirements for volunteering at a regional?

Pretty much it's be 18 or over (or parental consent) and fill out all the stuff on the FIRST website in VIMS (IIRC, it's experience, where you want to work, contact info, and that sort of thing). That should cover field reset, spare parts, and other "general purpose" spots, like field setup/teardown.

Refs and inspectors have to take a rules test and pass. Rookie inspectors will often pair with veterans for a while on Thursdays.

"Field operations lead" types have to do training at a common location.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1000150)

But can you spare the weight? ;)

Engineering is all tradeoffs.

Also consider that bigger tanks take longer to pressurize.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

I am not able to download the file. Anyone else having problems?

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 1000553)

I am not able to download the file. Anyone else having problems?

I can't download it either.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

I just opened it again, and it appears it would let me save it.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Can anyone copy and paste the rule changes on this thead for thouse of us that can't open the pdf?

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

To sum it up:

Minibots must be deployed completely below the line.

<R66> now amended to include pneumatic cylinders and storage tanks of any sort.

<R92-O> now specifies "electrical hookup" wire (as opposed to metal wire that could be formed into springs, etc)

Re: 2011 Team Update #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjenks548 (Post 1000636)

Can anyone copy and paste the rule changes on this thead for thouse of us that can't open the pdf?

Here you go:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Update #2

Section 1 – Introduction & Section 2 – The Game
No change.

Section 3 – The Game
Section 3 – The Game, Rev B has been updated to include the following edits:
<G21> HOSTBOTS may only DEPLOY MINIBOTS onto their ALLIANCE‟S TOWERS and
entirely below the DEPLOYMENT LINE.
Violation: RED CARD
<G22> HOSTBOTS may not contact their ALLIANCE‟S MINIBOT once any part of it has
climbed above the DEPLOYMENT LINE. Violation: TOWER is disabled

Section 4 – The Robot
Section 4 – The Robot, Rev B has been updated to include the following edits (including
fixing the bullet letters in Rule <R66>):
<R66> In addition to the items included in the KOP, pneumatic system items specifically
permitted on 2011 FRC ROBOTS include the following items. All included items must be “off
the shelf” COTS pneumatic devices rated by their manufacturers for working pressure of at
least 125psi and burst pressure of 250psi, and used in their original, unaltered condition
(except as required for assembly with other components).
A. Pneumatic pressure vent plug valves functionally equivalent to those provided in the
KOP,
B. Solenoid valves with a maximum 1⁄8” NPT port diameter, and a maximum Cv of 0.32
(if non-KOP valves are used, the team will be required to provide part documentation
validating that the valves meet these constraints).
C. than 125psi rating mandated above are permitted, however if employed, an
additional pressure relief valve must be added to the low pressure side of the main
regulator. The additional relief valve must be set to a lower pressure than the
maximum pressure rating for the solenoid valve.
January 14, 2010D. Additional 0.160” inside diameter pneumatic tubing functionally equivalent to that
provided in the KOP, with the pressure rating clearly factory-printed on the exterior of
the tubing,
E. Pressure transducers, pressure gauges, and connecting fittings,
F. Pressure regulators with a maximum bypass pressure of no more than 60psi,
G. For the purposes of the FRC, a device that creates a vacuum is not considered to be
a pneumatic device and are not subject to the pneumatic rules (although they must
still satisfy all other appropriate rules). These include, but are not limited to; venturitype vacuum generators and off-the-shelf vacuum devices (as long as they are
powered by provided or permitted motors).
H. For the purposes of the FRC, closed-loop COTS pneumatic (gas) shocks are not
considered pneumatic devices, and are not subject to the pneumatic rules (although
they must still satisfy all other appropriate rules).
I. For the purposes of the FRC, air-filled (pneumatic) wheels are not considered
pneumatic devices, and are not subject to the pneumatic rules (although they must
still satisfy all other appropriate rules).
J. Pneumatic cylinders.
K. Pneumatic storage tanks.
<R91> The MINIBOT may not exceed a 12” x 12” x 12” volume and weigh no more than 15
lbs.
<R92-O> electrical hookup wire of appropriate gauge (see Rule <R40>),

Section 5 – The Tournament
No change.

Kit of Parts
The 2011 Kit of Parts Checklist, Rev B has been updated to include the following edits:
- The spelling of “Separate” has been corrected.