Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Montois
Per FIRST Q & A, Emphasis mine...
Q. Per this rule, would a device that utilizes a passive "appendage" deployed over the center line barrier (bump) to prevent your machine from being moved or twisted when hit (by applying forces to opposing sides of the barrier be considered a violation of this rule? Please elaborate on rule intent.
A. The intent of Rule [G10] is stated in its opening sentence, "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure." While, we cannot comment on the legality of a specific design, holding on to a field element is considered grappling and a violation of Rule [G10].
Q. Is it permissable for a robot on the bridge to extend a device that can also react off the bottom surface of the bridge provided that device does not grasp the bridge firmly?
A. Rule [G10] does not put a qualifier on how a Robot may legally grasp the Bridge. It simply says it cannot do it.
I feel like they might be in trouble...
|
To me, the photo of their robot says a thousand words, and the third photo from the top shows me exactly why they are legal: the CG of their robot is entirely underneath the flat portion of their hanging mechanism. This means that when the robot is elevated off of the ground, 100% of their weight is supported on the flat portion on the top of the bridge (with no other horizontal or vertical forces exerted in a means that pinches the bridge). The rest of their robot is simply overhanging off the side of the bridge.
This condition is no different than if a traditional 6WD robot drive halfway off the bridge, with a sizable chuck of their robot hanging in free air. For the robot to not fall off, the CG must be over the portion supported by the bridge. And while there may be extra robot volume there hanging beyond (or below) the top plane of the bridge, the robot is still entirely supported only by reacting to the top surface of the bridge.