Thread: "Load Bearing Surface"
View Single Post
  #105   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-02-2005, 16:37
Woodie Flowers Award
Ken Patton Ken Patton is offline
purple
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire)
Team Role: Engineer
  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 338
Ken Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
I am late coming in to the discussion about what is “in.” I was hoping it would be resolved cleanly, but I don’t think that has happened.

What Q&A978 failed to do was to say specifically WHAT needs to touch the triangle. The “robot base and / or drive train” is what Q&A978 said. Some teams took that to mean robot-base-components including those outside the 28x38, things like wheelie bars and outriggers. Some teams might have tip-over designs that use some other dimensions on the floor.

We believed we satisfied 978 because when we pulled into the LZ it WAS blatantly obvious that we were over, and touching, the triangle. In plan view, it would be hard for a ref to *find* the triangle when we drive in straight and bump our wheelie bars against the field border. We’d be touching in at least three locations if you count the wheelie bars.

Then, on Feb16, Q&A1617 said that any load-bearing surface WITHIN 28x38 counted. Then, on Feb18, Q&A1698 said outriggers outside the 28x38 were NOT going to satisfy touching. SINCE WHEN IS THE ROBOT BASE REQUIRED TO BE 28x38? How is the ref going to say where 28” ends and 28+” begins? How does the ref know which side of the robot is the 28” side and which is the 38” side? What about tip-over robots? Why did FIRST decide this on Feb 16??

This ruling is way too late, and even worse, it is arbitrary in its use of the 28x38 box. It ought to be changed to something that does not penalize teams who are legitimately using their drive base as a drive base and NOT as a deployable “keep-me-in-the-LZ” device.

If the ruling stays as it is, it forces the refs to spend valuable effort to find a point of contact when the intent of the rule is simply to determine if the “body” of the robot is in the LZ. The ref should be looking for interferences and safety concerns at this point, not searching the ground for contact points…..

FIRST, this is an opportunity to simplify. It might not make you look really consistent, but it will save a lot of headaches and controversy and delays during the tournaments. Make a rule that’s easier to ref. Make a rule that satisfies your intent (safety, and eliminating deployable-keep-me-in-the-LZ devices). I hope you make a rule that doesn’t disadvantage teams who thought they were doing the right thing until Q&A 1617 came out.

Ken