Are extensions with bumpers after the start of the game legal

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I just want to clear up something so this doesn't grow out of hand. The Wildstang 2003 robot although designed with a wedge (legal in that year) was not designed (and never used) to flip our opponents. It was merely a strategy to allow us to protect the ice and to allow alliance partners to drive up on us for protection if needed. Any robot that flipped over trying to go around our strategy did so under their own driving. Our drivers were practiced to stop driving (or back up) if a team was aggressive so we would have no part in their flip. The wings were articulated and were raised during much of the match.

[JesseK]

It should be interesting to see this robot play the game. Inherent to adding traction to the outer corners to prevent turning is the fact that while the sides are up, the robot will have a high c.g. This means that even the high-speed low-torque KOP drive train can prevent this robot from getting into position.

Take care that you don't intentionally deploy the extremities down on top of a robot that's trying to get by since that amount of weight can significantly damage the other robot -- while technically it would probably be considered incidental contact the first time it happened, consider the bridges that may be burned in doing so.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by staplemonx

We are going to keep our pseudo bumpers the same color as our real bumpers and put the team number on them as well

You need to think carefully about how you're going to do this. Your pseudobumpers still don't fall under normal bumper rules, so you don't get to make this change for free. If you have two sets of colored "bumpers", you'll need to pass weight with BOTH sets, as you'd fall under the multiple configuration part of <R11>. (RED configuration and BLUE) Thus, you'd be wasting some of your ballast, leaving it in your pits since you could only run with one set of pseudobumpers at a time.

I'd either go with a neutral color like black or white, or make the fancy reversible-style bumpers with the cloth flap that flips over to change bumper colors.

[jvriezen]

Seems like technically, your plan may run afoul of R09:

"Teams shall display their team number on the BUMPERS in four locations at approximately 90° intervals around the perimeter of the ROBOT. The numerals must be at least 4” high, at least in ¾” stroke width and in a contrasting color from its background. Team Numbers must be clearly visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet, so that judges, referees, and announcers can easily identify competing ROBOTS"

Two of your numbers on your official BUMPERS will not be clearly visible from 100' during much of the match. Putting extra numbers on the extensions satisfies the goal of the rule, but doesn't really satisfy the rule.

I suppose the same could be said about a typical robot's floor loading mechanism, but that is usually a temporary condition, while yours will be more long lasting, I presume.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

Two of your numbers on your official BUMPERS will not be clearly visible from 100' during much of the match. Putting extra numbers on the extensions satisfies the goal of the rule, but doesn't really satisfy the rule.

I suppose the same could be said about a typical robot's floor loading mechanism, but that is usually a temporary condition, while yours will be more long lasting, I presume.

I definitely understand the point you are trying to make here, but I think that is a tough line to draw in the sand; some mechanisms are allowed to block team numbers, while others are not? It just seems like a tough call to make. I would just ask the GDC and get the official ruling before going one way or the other.

-Brando

[The Lucas]

Before I get into along lost post a quick question for OP
Are you going to design the extensions to be retractable or are they going to stay down once deployed?

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

MOE, Team 365 from 2002 comes to mind when thinking about something like this. Given, back then you could have metal dig into the carpet, but MOE had a system that would expand the entire width of the field more or less and was able to stay in place/move forward much of the time.

Quick review of Zone Zeal (2002) there were 3 large movable goals initially lined up in the middle of the field (Neutral zone) and Alliances of 2 robots would try to push the goals into their scoring zone (reverse Tug o' War). There also were soccer balls you could put into the goal to increase score, they only score if they are in your zone. The strategy with MOEhawk (robot's name in 2002) was to expand our wingspan to ~14ft while speeding toward the goals. Grab all 3 goals push them (barely) into our zone in the first few seconds of the match then deploy traction devices on the arms and under the bot to hold our ground for the rest of the match.

The most important part of the traction devices on the outer goal grippers was not the metal file cards against the carpet but the pneumatic cylinders we used to lift the goal and put additional normal force on the file card. We had a version of this traction device that used rougthtop in place of file cards and it worked almost as well. The movable goals weighed more than a robot so there was plenty of additional normal force to be had at the end of that arm. The whole system of MOEhawk and 3 goals weighted more than 500lbs, giving us a distinct advantage against a 130lb robot ramming us.

At Nationals (as the Championship Event was called back them) we went against a robot that also lifted the goals, and they were the far more effective at moving MOEhawk than any other robot. Also in the epic final match of Brunswick Eruption, the Silver Scorpion (Team 25's bot) actually pushed a soccer ball under the goal reducing the normal force. Silver Scorpion's next ram moved the goal & arm winning the event.

I don't see anyway to get additional traction like lifting a goal in this years game. There are rules against using wedges and grasping field elements. Of course 3553's robot will be only be 7' max width about half the width of MOEhawk so the moment arm is significantly less.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Fun times. You'll fit right in.

Agreed, they definitely will fit into the defensive mindset of Philly. Many years a top defensive bot gets picked near the end of the first round as an alliance goes for defense against a high-scoring, high-seeded alliance. When a few members of my team were saying that we wouldn't see much defense this year, I reply with something like "We are going to Philly, right?" It is great to see a rookie team (and a fellow Boeing team) trying an interesting idea like this, I hope to see it at Philly.

[gbrettmiller]

The more I think about <G61> and this thread, along with update 4, the more I'm thinking that <G61> won't apply to the situation where you get knocked into the opposing zone while playing defense.

The rule states that one Alliance can't cause the other to incur a penalty. But if you are playing defense, especially between the caution line and the zone boundary, and you get knocked into the opposing zone, it could be argued that you put yourself in the situation where you would cross into the zone.

I guess my point is, if you plan to play strong defense you may want to stay on the center-field side of the caution line, close to the towers, to avoid any chance of going across the zone line.

[staplemonx]

Here is an updated design that incorporates all of the feedback we received. We ordered the wrong cylinders so those will need to be fixed. We are 82 in long and fit into an 83.75 in radius with the pseudo bumpers. This will be a blocking robot with 4 CIMS, 8x 8” wheels, and we will launch the mini bot from the center section on the top. We will retrrack the extensions prior to moving to deploy the monibot.

We still have to figure out if that break in the bumper is OK. if not we have to figure out another way to get the extensions down. We are planning on making each extension close to 25lb by putting some of the heavy system components in them.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by gbrettmiller

But if you are playing defense, especially between the caution line and the zone boundary, and you get knocked into the opposing zone, it could be argued that you put yourself in the situation where you would cross into the zone.

There is no rule against putting yourself in a situation where you can be pushed into the opponents zone, there is a rule against going into it. If another robot pushing you is the action that causes you to enter the opponents zone I fail to see how <G61> would not apply.

The actions of the opposing alliance (their robot pushing yours) caused you to violate a rule (entering the opponents home zone). Matches the scenario covered by <G61> exactly.

[EricH]

I'd have to say that the gap in the bumper causes your robot to violate the 100% coverage rule. That said, if you moved the base of the cylinder to the upper part of the frame so it didn't have to go through the bumpers, and maybe moved the attachment to the wings slightly higher, you could easily avoid the gap.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by staplemonx

Here is an updated design that incorporates all of the feedback we received. We ordered the wrong cylinders so those will need to be fixed. We are 82 in long and fit into an 83.75 in radius with the pseudo bumpers. This will be a blocking robot with 4 CIMS, 8x 8” wheels, and we will launch the mini bot from the center section on the top. We will retrrack the extensions prior to moving to deploy the monibot.

We still have to figure out if that break in the bumper is OK. if not we have to figure out another way to get the extensions down. We are planning on making each extension close to 25lb by putting some of the heavy system components in them.

The bot looks good, I'm glad you're aiming to make the minibot - resist giving up on it! :-)

A few important comments:
1. Currently the the robot's true bumpers have a small cut-out in them for the "outriggers" to fold through... Those are unfortunately not legal. The robot's bumpers are required to be continuous all the way around the robot, with no exceptions. <R07A>

2. I'm glad you're certain you can fit within 84"! I feel harsh in asking, but will the bottom edge of the "outriggers" extend outside of the 84" while unfolding?

3. You're welcome to construct whatever you like for the "pseudo-bumpers;" however the bumpers that go around the 28"x38" robot must be regulation... I'm not sure if it's just the model, but the regulation bumpers have only two pool noodles - not three stacked on top of each other. <R07E>

4. A not so significant comment... It seems like there are many frame members... I have no idea what your wait looks like, but be sure you have wait for everything... From experience, as soon as a team takes the attitude "wait isn't that much of a concern!" the robot ends up overweight. Make sure you include things like wires, fasteners, and chain in your weight roll-up. Those can add as much as 15+ pounds on the entire robot!


Looking good - I admire your teams' innovation, open designing, and willingness to take risks! Best of luck!

[Tristan Lall]

I was going to run through a list of issues, but then I saw Nathan's post: do what he says! Pay particular attention to the entirety of <R07>.

Your current design is illegal and overbuilt, but is certainly salvageable. Use your CAD program's weight estimation function, to sanity-check your work.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by staplemonx

Here is an updated design that incorporates all of the feedback we received. We ordered the wrong cylinders so those will need to be fixed. We are 82 in long and fit into an 83.75 in radius with the pseudo bumpers. This will be a blocking robot with 4 CIMS, 8x 8” wheels, and we will launch the mini bot from the center section on the top. We will retrrack the extensions prior to moving to deploy the monibot.

We still have to figure out if that break in the bumper is OK. if not we have to figure out another way to get the extensions down. We are planning on making each extension close to 25lb by putting some of the heavy system components in them.

Please tell me you meant to say 83.75 in DIAMETER.

[GaryVoshol]

I concur, you cannot have a gap in your true BUMPERS for the outrigger support to come down.

And what's up with a 3-noodle bumper?

[staplemonx]

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350

Please tell me you meant to say 83.75 in DIAMETER.

He he

Yes I meant to say diameter

Here is a reduced weight configuration we updated per the comments. We removed almost 20lbs. We also fixed the bumper gap. We also fixed the bumpers to have the recommended 2 noodles. And we also changed our pneumatic solution to make the elevation of the extensions easier to do with a shorter cylinder. Thanks again for everyone’s help. You have saved our team from making a lot of mistakes.