View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-06-2010, 08:33
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,412
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
Robot Rule R08 - what does it mean, and what should it mean?

In another thread, we have a good discussion regarding the "metal on carpet" rule, R08 (page 12).

There seems to be some disagreement with how this rule should be interpreted. Some people think that this means "no metal on carpet". Others think that it means "no additive traction devices which gain traction".

I'll make a case for the latter:

The intent of this rule, if I understand it correctly, is to not allow metal treads, as on TechnoKats and Wildstang robots in 2002. Also, it is aimed at not allowing file cards, which were also made famous by Team Hammond in 2002, and then copied by many teams that same year. Also, there have been teams who put metal or plastic cleats or even sandpaper on wheels to give them a traction advantage. These additions were legal, back in 2002 and before, but FIRST created a rule (R08) due to too much damage being done to the carpet and field (heck, carpet would even buckle up in some places). Maybe this rule can be scrutinized to death so that no metal can ever touch the carpet, but I seriously think that is not the intent.

What surprises me is that well-meaning people look at this rule and automatically think that it's a "no metal on carpet rule". They are doing their best to interpret the rule, but possibly missing the intent.

I welcome everyone to discuss this topic here, and maybe we can come up with some sort of consensus, one way or the other. Then, whatever the consensus is, we might be able to effectively write a rule explaining this more clearly so that everyone can work within clear boundaries.

Sincerely,
Andy

Last edited by Andy Baker : 16-06-2010 at 08:35.