View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2006, 08:33
Taylor's Avatar
Taylor Taylor is offline
Professor of Thinkology, ThD
AKA: @taylorstem
FRC #3487 (Red Pride Robotics)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA 46227
Posts: 4,599
Taylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond repute
Re: height violation while extending

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budda648
This is exactly what I was thinking. My suggestion would be to design away from anything that could potentially break the 60" plane or make the extension short enough or at a lesser degree that it would not break the plane. But then again... is it stable as it moves up and out?
I interpret the rule and the "stable" terminology as meaning controlled. If the robot is moving parts on its own and breaks the 60" plane, that would be controlled movement and as part of the design of the robot, the 60" plane is broken, which results in a penalty. "Unstable", in my eyes, is an instance in which an external force is acting on the robot (another robot, a game piece) and causing it to change its orientation. So, the short answer is yes, if at any time during the match a robot exceeds 60" UNLESS it is caused by an external force, there should be a penalty. The thing about it is the refs would have to have a trained eye to look out for these things, and some infractions may not be caught. I look for the GP in each team to make sure the robot and its design don't break the rules.
__________________
Hi!