[philso]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Also if a team can't think up a simple plywood and 2x4 platform how did you build a robot with a pickup system?

Originally Posted by jman4747

My only problem with that is that the safety system is susceptible to fail due to the same kind of mistake that would cause the problem it is there to prevent.

Yet more large pieces of equipment in a crowded pit. Have you ever seen a robot launch it self off wooden blocks placed under it that contacted the wheels?

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I just want to reiterate that it's impossible to properly test any floor pickup mechanism without the robot on the floor. There are times when wheels have to be on the ground. A number of good solutions have been proposed, including simply pulling breakers which is really even easier than propping a robot up.

Disconnecting power sources (i.e. pulling breakers or fuses) is an accepted practice in the electrical/electronics industry.

Originally Posted by robochick1319

I would imagine that it would be added to the Safety Manual and the Administration Manual since it would be a general FIRST rule and not game specific.

And if we are really talking about preparing kids for the "real world" industries, how many companies ignore significant safety hazards cause new rules would make "the manuals too long."

I am sure there are lots of teams who don't read the manuals as they are written now and that would be unlikely to change even if we did shorten them. TL;DR is a real thing after all. That is why (like other game and safety rules) it has be regularly discussed and enforced until it becomes as natural as wearing safety glasses.

My issue with the suggested rule (no wheels on the ground) is that it is specific to a particular risk and that there are more general precautions (keeping a clear "Kill Zone") that can be applied to this and other hazards without making the test condition so different that the results are invalid. In previous games, being struck by a game piece at a distance would have been a more likely hazard than being struck by the robot itself. The "canburglar" mechanisms used this year have a long reach and they could be a hazard whether the wheels were on the ground or not (or if the robot had no wheels, like Stretchy from Israel).

Keeping the safety rules simple and easy to understand and apply is real world industrial practice. The safest systems/environments are not the ones with "the best rules". They are the ones with effective rules that one can apply without referring to a manual when needing to apply the rule.

Keeping a clear kill zone is also a standard industrial practice, especially in a dynamic environment where all kinds of new things are tried in a shared space making it difficult to foresee all possible hazards. We keep at least 6 feet away from equipment we are not familiar with in our production test areas and our R&D labs. This type of environment also makes it difficult to make detailed safety rules since the next project (or next year's game) can present hazards that we have not encountered before.

In terms of preparing kids for the "real world", I would rather hire one who could think and devise a way to get the task done in a safe manner over one who just followed the rules since following the rules does not necessarily mean that one understands the logic and intent of the rules.