Thread: "Load Bearing Surface"
View Single Post
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2005, 08:25
Natchez Natchez is offline
Registered User
#0118 (Robonauts)
  
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 189
Natchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
Andy & Lucien,

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon. You guys are being a bit harsh, aren't you?
Paul, I'm sorry if I implied that the "in the loading zone" rule was clear; it is about as clear as the Mississippi River around New Orleans. As you pointed out, many teams, including us, were surprised at the February 16th clarification about "load bearing" ... almost jaw dropping ... certainly design altering. Without saying that you are "exactly right" in your rule interpretation and how you design and train your drivers, you are 99.9999% right

On this topic, I really don't have a problem with FIRST admitting that the February 16 clarification was "off base", I just don't want to see the Band-Aid be to increase the size of the loading zone as they did with the human player side. Base straddling should have been accepted, as you pointed out, and I think FIRST tried to correct a wrong with their "wire tie" clarification without admitting that "load bearing" was wrong. But, I can certainly see where FIRST is gun-shy because as soon as you allow "over", there will a handful of teams that say their arm is "over" the triangle and therefore they are "in the zone" ... and, sadly, they would have gotten away with it.

In a broader sense, rules clarifying is a "process" problem that I would like FIRST to address. The Q&A system was a great advancement but I think they need a process where the rules interpreters have their finger on the pulse of the teams. With that said, I recognize that rules clarifying is a VERY, VERY, VERY difficult thing to do and I don't envy those who do it at FIRST. Think about it, other sports, such as golf, have volumes clarifying rules that don't change from year to year; FIRST must clarify a set of new rules every year ... at least for the game. Although very difficult, FIRST must recognize that participants are paying $6,000 and demand a high quality product.

Have a nice day,
Lucien