I am not apologizing for FIRST, I am just advocating pragmatism from the teams. The bolt pattern was definitely not obvious and I don't remember seeing it anywhere in the official rules. They are in the official field drawings in sections 37, 38 and 69 of the Game Field Elements but I know most teams (including my own) don't check those.
Believe me I sympathize with any team who's bot successfully climbs the pole but doesn't get the points for it. I know that it must be immensely frustrating. I want to eliminate that from ever happening. Thats why I think that with a few small minibot modifications, this will become simply a non-issue and the tower results will match everyones expectations.
I know there were cases where the minibots reached the top of the tower but it didn't trigger. I am just being honest and did not see any of those cases where it was completely obvious that the bolt was not hit and that it delivered enough force and still did not trigger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
Where in the rules does it say that you have to provide a given impulse? All it says is 4 newtons, not 4 newtons for 2 seconds, half a second, etc.
Teams made their minibots to FIRST's rules. They should fix their (still) not fully functional system, or put measures in place to ensure that minibots conforming to their published rules actually get scored.
Instead they just say "our system is perfect, so if you don't trigger it, even if you blast the darn plate off the top of the pole entirely, you still don't get the points". If the system is proven to have any flaws then FIRST ought to recognize that it is possible for mistakes to be made.
Anyone seriously arguing whether a 2.5 lb minibot going 6-10 ft/s will impart 4 N of force or not is just being a FIRST apologist. This is simple physics and some efficiency losses due to friction, etc aren't going to change much.
Perhaps we should take some video of our official competition towers being repeatedly triggered by our minibot to silence the doubters?
|