Robot intentionally tipping over

[Pongox]

Rule G25 states:

A ROBOT may not attempt to stop or impede the flow of the MATCH in any of the following ways:
A. intentionally tipping over
B. coordinating a blockade of the FIELD with ALLIANCE members
C. blocking GOAL(S) while in contact with its own BATTER using anything outside its FRAME PERIMETER

So could you intentionally tip the robot over without trying to impede the flow of the match?

[John Retkowski]

Why would you want to tip over? If you mean tipping over to block a goal or a defense, I would consider those to be impeding the flow of the match.

[Pongox]

Originally Posted by John Retkowski

Why would you want to tip over? If you mean tipping over to block a goal or a defense, I would consider those to be impeding the flow of the match.

I was thinking about a way for a tall but thin robot to go under the low bar. I was just curious about this method.

[John Retkowski]

I would THINK you would then have to then look at the 120 inch frame rule because there have been instances (last year I believe) where it was then considered to be changing configuration and then the height would be considered the "frame perimeter."

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by John Retkowski

I would THINK you would then have to then look at the 120 inch frame rule because there have been instances (last year I believe) where it was then considered to be changing configuration and then the height would be considered the "frame perimeter."

I think the "transportation configuration" rules of last season could hold precedent. Teams like 1114 and 1241 had transportation configurations that were not the same orientation on the field, yet were not penalized for size violations, because they could still fit into the box. However, sizing rules were very different last year. In 2013 and 2014, where the same frame perimeter rule was imposed, I don't recall there ever being an instance of the issue you describe, although there probably wasn't an instance where that issue could have occurred.

[T3_1565]

I believe the rule that may stop this is the "can't extend 15 inches past frame perimeter" rule.

You cannot change perimeter mid match so if you went from a skinny drive train to a long one you would exceed the 15 inch reach.

Thats how I would see it anyways. I may be wrong.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

I think the "transportation configuration" rules of last season could hold precedent. Teams like 1114 and 1241 had transportation configurations that were not the same orientation on the field, yet were not penalized for size violations, because they could still fit into the box. However, sizing rules were very different last year. In 2013 and 2014, where the same frame perimeter rule was imposed, I don't recall there ever being an instance of the issue you describe, although there probably wasn't an instance where that issue could have occurred.

Those rules do not apply this year. Instead, parse these rules:

G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
D. confined to its STARTING CONFIGURATION,

STARTING CONFIGURATION
the physical configuration and orientation of the ROBOT when the MATCH is started.This is the state of the ROBOT immediately before being Enabled by the FieldManagement System, before the ROBOT takes any actions, deploys any mechanisms,or moves away from the starting location. This configuration is static, and does not change during a single MATCH (although it may change from MATCH to MATCH). In the STARTING CONFIGURATION, no part of the ROBOT may extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER, with the exception of minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc.

R3 The ROBOT must satisfy the following size constraints:
A. total length of the FRAME PERIMETER sides must not exceed 120 in. (see Figure 4-1 for examples),
B. must not extend greater than 15 in. beyond the FRAME PERIMETER (see Figure 4-2 for examples) (see G18), and
C. ROBOT STARTING CONFIGURATION height must not exceed 54 in. (note that ROBOT height may exceed this limit in-MATCH as allowed by G17).

R22 BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained between two virtual horizontal planes, 4 in. above the floor and 12 in. above the floor, in reference to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor. BUMPERS do not have to be parallel to the floor.

In my opinion the combination of these rules prevents any "flop bots".

[tstew]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

I think the "transportation configuration" rules of last season could hold precedent.

Last year's rules do not apply:

Originally Posted by 2016 FRC Game Manual Section 1.4;

The intent of this manual is that the text means exactly, and only, what it says. Please avoid interpreting the text based on assumptions about intent, implementation of past rules, or how a situation might be in “real life.”

[jkelleyrtp]

I know you aren't supposed to disseminate the rules from pictures but...

[Chak]

Originally Posted by jkelleyrtp

I know you aren't supposed to disseminate the rules from pictures but...

Originally Posted by G1

ROBOTS whose operation or design is dangerous or unsafe are not permitted.

I find it hard to believe that a referee will allow a robot to have sideways bumpers in a match. I believe bumpers were intended to protect the world from the robot and the robot from the world. Having the bumpers sideways like that would be unsafe imo. You may not even pass inspection if you intend to do this as part of the robot design.
But if you have a way to move your bumpers down... that looks so complicated, it's probably not worth it though imo.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chak

I find it hard to believe that a referee will allow a robot to have sideways bumpers in a match. I believe bumpers were intended to protect the world from the robot and the robot from the world. Having the bumpers sideways like that would be unsafe imo. You may not even pass inspection if you intend to do this as part of the robot design.
But if you have a way to move your bumpers down... that looks so complicated, it's probably not worth it though imo.

I think it COULD [Edit: NOT] be done, legally.

BUT, it's way way way too risky. You'd have to have two full sets of bumpers, one permanently mounted in each configuration. AND you'd have to be <120" perimeter in BOTH orientations. Not to mention having the ability to retract wheels for the start of the match. (And I'd use that within the match, too.)

An articulated Frame Perimeter is specifically banned.

It ain't worth it.

EDIT: I realized the problem here. The post-flop set has to be OUTSIDE the Frame Perimeter before the match, or the Frame Perimeter it's on is articulated. Either one of those is illegal.

Yep, illegal.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Chak

I find it hard to believe that a referee will allow a robot to have sideways bumpers in a match.

I believe it would be the Robot Inspectors that would have the problem, and not the Referees.

The second set of bumpers would be outside the bumper zone, and thus not "Bumpers". You would have to design it so that the 2nd set of bumpers were:
1) Entirely inside the Frame Perimeter; and
2) Within the 120# weight limit.

[DonShaw]

I believe this strategy would be in conflict with 1.1 Message from Woodie Flowers Award Recipients.

"We want to know they are playing with integrity and not using strategies based on questionable behaviors."

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I have to add to this discussion that your robot has to satisfy all rules not just certain rules. What comes to mind are those rules and definitions that discuss bumper zone, FRAME PERIMETER and dimensions, bumper mounting (covering all exterior vertices) and articulation. Depending on dimensions, I can see the possibility of changes in aperture that can still satisfy the rules.

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by Chak

I find it hard to believe that a referee will allow a robot to have sideways bumpers in a match. I believe bumpers were intended to protect the world from the robot and the robot from the world. Having the bumpers sideways like that would be unsafe imo. You may not even pass inspection if you intend to do this as part of the robot design.
But if you have a way to move your bumpers down... that looks so complicated, it's probably not worth it though imo.

R23. Bumpers aren't allowed to articulate as Eric mentioned. Just wanted to cite the rule.