Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol
Team Update 2 had a diagram in it showing what the GDC thought was the maximum incursion a trailer could have into a robot frame; based on that diagram you would not be able to enclose a trailer enough to be able to shoot straight down into it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
Can you show where, exactly, it said that in Team Update #2?
I ask this because, in reading through all of the Q&A threads, it is repeated over and over again that the illustrations in that Team Update show particular examples of one way to implement a solution that satisfies the rules. It does not show the ONLY way to do so. The Q&A responses specifically ask that we "don't try to infer any other conclusions from these specific examples." I can't find anywhere that it says that either example in Team Update #2 shows the maximum opening size/trailer incursion possible. I point this out only because we need to be careful not to assume that there are limits where they are not clearly stated, and that we do not accidently communicate to other teams an incorrect assumption about those non-existent limits.
-dave
.
|
OK, I should have qualified my remarks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Team Update 2
In the case of the archetype “wide drive” robot with a centered opening on the front of the robot, this can result in a significant limit on the size of the opening. This limits the ability for incursion inside the bumper perimeter by the trailer.
|
Team Update 2 only notes a "signifcant limit" on the size of an opening for a typical wide-drive flat front robot, resulting in limited incursion by the trailer.
As I said in my earlier post, if the team came up with a configuration that satisfied all robot rules, good for them.
My reason posting a reply to the question was to suggest they look at what they were doing to be sure it meets the rules. We've seen far too many examples of things that don't appear to be in compliance.