View Single Post
  #75   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 15:07
Peter Matteson's Avatar
Peter Matteson Peter Matteson is offline
Ambitious but rubbish!
FRC #0177 (Bobcat Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: South Windsor, CT
Posts: 1,653
Peter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
I missed it, too. Can you please tell me where to look for the exemption you are referring to?
Note the word should in the below quote. If it was a must like in codes and standards the would have used the word shall or must. This allows you to have an angled deployed device AT YOUR OWN RISK of penalty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 5 The Robot
<R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in
pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a
robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might
push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical. Devices deployed outside the robot's
footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for
example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur
depending on the severity of the infraction.
Reply With Quote