View Single Post
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-02-2005, 22:15
rees2001 rees2001 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Rees
FRC #0340 (Greater Rochester Robotics)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 802
rees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond reputerees2001 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: In the Loading zone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Collmandoman
maybe? but it's true.. Don't take it the wrong way... I wish it were that you were in the zone.. I've been fighting for these types of robots and logic for the last few days.. the post is a criticism of the absurd rule -- and since there are some that don't know that.. I changed it =)
So you think the rule is abrurd? It took me a while but I think I agree with your post.

absurd
adj 1: inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense;

ID: 1773 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 2/28/2005

Q: We designed and built a robot that would tip from 38x28 to 38x60. The “new” base and drive train is “blatantly obvious that our robot is in the LZ” and ”has a load bearing surface in contact with the hdpe”. Is our robot in the LZ?

A: If we understand your question correctly, yes. Robots that "flop" basically must declare a 28" x 38" of their robot to be the "robot base." This is the section that the referees will always use to determine if your robot is in the loading zone.

I know I could have phrased the question better but I was limited to the number of characters allowed. I won't argue the answer though. If I read it right then.. yep, she's in the LZ.... I think?