Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisH
You should also be aware that last fall I volunteered to be a technical judge at one of the competitions. I won't tell you which one, but I will tell you that I will be packing a 6" scale.
|
Then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules.
Quote:
Rule M8
Robots must use the rotating light provided in the kit to display their alliance color (red or blue). The light must be mounted upright on the robot so that the color is always visible from a distance of at least 100 feet. The light should be mounted to allow easy changeover of the colored lens before matches. See Section 3.2.2 for Rotating Light wiring information, also see Rule C26.
|
Quote:
Team Update 5: PAGE 18, RULE M8,
There have been numerous design questions relative to the installation/placement of the rotating light. The purpose of M8 is to insure that your drivers, the referees, the scorekeeper, and the judges can identify your robot and that the audience has some idea of who’s who; and to make sure that it is installed to enable EASY CHANGEOVER OF THE LIGHT LENSE.
A momentary “loss” of visibility of this beacon is allowable; however, 99% of the time FIRST requires that the top 4” of the light be visible.
|
Quote:
From the FIRST Forums (Jan 17, 2003)
Question:
If the rotating light was submerged within the body of a robot that had all transparent sides so that the beacon could be seen in all directions at all times, would that satisfy the intent and spirit of the update to rule M8? In other words, can the light be visible through the sides of the robot?
Answer:
Most likely, the light visibility would be somewhat diffused by the transparent body.
The intent is for the judges and referees, as well as the public, to easily recognize your robot. It is important that the judges be able to easily identify your team so that they can give you proper credit toward the non-competition awards. We would like to see consistancy in visibility of the rotating light. Rule M8 say that the light must be "always visible". This can be left for interpretation. It will be the Tech Inspector's call as to whether the light is sufficiently visible if you use your scheme. You should have an alternate scheme ready if your original scheme does not pass inspection. You may have to demonstrate your scheme to the inspectors during the Thursday trial matches to get their judgement.
|
Nowhere does it say the light must be "exposed". It only says "visible". In fact, only the top 4" must be visible at all times. Last year the components of our robot were rather low-profile, so the light was higher and was able to always be seen. If you can do this with your robot, then I'd say go for it.
It's hard to say, though. I haven't seen this year's light in action compared to last year's. Is this year's light brighter than the light last year? Any objective opinions/testing?
However, rules do change from year to year. I could be wrong, and FIRST could be "cracking down" on "illegal light usage". I, however, highly doubt they're going to pull out a scale marked to the hundredths of an inch, and measure your light visibility. FIRST has done stranger things though....
In the end, if a critical mechanism depends on the light not being on the top of your robot, I wouldn't risk it just in case FIRST makes up their minds. If you want to "test the water", then run your robot through a practice round with the light mounted visibly inside the robot, and ask the judges if they have any complaints/concerns.