View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 12:51
Mentor Dave's Avatar
Mentor Dave Mentor Dave is offline
Renegade Engineer
FRC #1800
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Edwardsville, KS
Posts: 7
Mentor Dave will become famous soon enough
<R31> Experienced Opinions Needed

<R31>: No devices or decorations are permitted on the robot that are intended to jam or interfere with the operation of the vision system (i.e. changing robot color to confuse opponent's vision system).

This is my first post on the CD board (and this is my rookie year), so I apologize if I am repeating an old topic. I searched as best I could with the limited time that I have to try and answer my question before posting.

I was able to find some old threads from prior seasons that discussed this topic, but they seemed more like speculation than a definite answer. So, I'm hoping somebody will respond, "We tried this last year and didn't get disqualified..." or "We tried this last year and it WAS against the rules..." or something along those lines.

Our team is considering mounting a couple of the green cathode tubes to the front upper portion of the robot, so that while on defense, this light will distract or confuse the opposing team's shooters.

My initial reaction was that this was in clear violation of Rule 31. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder: what is meant by "jam or interfere with the operation..."?

Upon further reflection, I believe the function (or operation) of the camera is to lock onto a green light source. The aforementioned strategy would not prevent the camera from performing this operation. It would still lock onto a green light source. It just may not be the correct one.

If a robot had a device that would somehow scratch the lens, or detonate an EMP, then those would definitely be interfering or jamming with the operation of the vision system, and would be in clear violation of R31.

What if there was a really short shooter, and a taller robot drove in front of it. Would that be considered interfering? It definitely would have prevented the vision system from locking onto a target.

I'm not trying to devalue GP. I just want to understand the application of the rule, and how it has been enforced in previous competitions.