View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2017, 16:04
engunneer's Avatar
engunneer engunneer is offline
Alumni turned Mentor
AKA: Branden Gunn
FRC #4761
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Reading, MA
Posts: 893
engunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: G28 Clarification - Air Powered Shooter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
Point of interest - This has nothing at all to do with inspection. This is a Game rule (hence the G prefix), and is monitored by the refs, not the inspectors. From a practical perspective, your robot could be a giant fan (provided it's safe, per R07) and it would pass inspection. But as soon as you turned on the fan to create a small tornado on the field to suck up balls, I imagine the ref's would flag you.

All that said, I think it's clear that the defensive used of forced air is illegal from that rule. As for a shooting mechanism... I won't even pretend to know how it will be ruled. The penalty is pretty rough for it, though, so I wouldn't want to take a chance on it without first getting an iron-clad Q&A response. And as the Q&A doesn't open up for another 2 days, that's too late for me to spend time or energy on pursuing such a design when I have other options that can be prototyped right now for shooting balls.
continuing with your point of interest. Inspection is the determination that a presented design does not break any rules. We are inspecting that the robot meets all the R rules, and is not likely to break any G rules by design (G04 is the simplest example of one that we look for specifically on the inspection checklist). My point was that if it used for a shooting mechanism, but the shooter had no fuel, would forced air be leaving the volume of the robot? If so, it's illegal. Overextension limited by software is usually fine, but we still notify the head ref that a robot is capable of breaking a rule on the field, and should be watched. That's the best case i can think of for an air shooter. Legal for shooting, but not legal for defense, and the ref will be notified to keep an eye out.
__________________
Student FRC23 (1996-1999), Mentor FRC246 (2000), Mentor FRC1318 (2007-2009), Mentor FRC93 (2011), Mentor FRC2151 (2012), Mentor FRC23 (2013), Mentor FRC4761 (2014-2017)
1998 - National Chairman's Award and Woodie Flowers Award (FRC23, Mike Bastoni ) | 2007 - PNW SF (488, 1595) | 2008 - Oregon RCA - Seattle #2 Seed, SF (488, 1696) | 2009 - Oregon #1 Seed, Winners (1983, 2635) - Seattle SF (945, 2865) - Galileo #2 Seed, SF (973, 25) | 2012 Midwest F (111, 71) | 2014 RIDE Winners (78, 125), Inspector - NEU #24, QF (3479, 3958) - NECMP #35 | 2015 Reading #11, SF (1058, 190), Inspector - RIDE #17, QF(4055, 5494), Inspector - NECMP #57 | 2016 Reading #4, SF (133, 4474), DCA, Inspector - Ride #22, SF (1735, 2067), Creativity, Inspector - NECMP #48, RCA - Archimedes
Reply With Quote