2012 Team Update #1

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by speedbuggy76

Hmm, I thought this clarification was to avoid robots from dropping down a support beam to the ground at one end of the bridge. I don't think it would eliminate robot-on-robot designs, since the bridge is still supporting the weight of both robots.

They missed that clarification in the update. Ask on the Q&A for a definition of "fully supported".

[mwtidd]

A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and any Robots touching it are fully supported by it.

Is it just me or does this rule imply that as long as you are touching the bridge and it is within 5°, you are fully supported by it?

So drive up and drop an arm on it and technically you're fully supported...

For me this clarification just made the rule more unclear.

[dsalvucci]

Does the fixed frame perimeter eliminate the possibility of an Archimedes Screw type of ball collection where the ball would enter the system by driving over it? I cannot really decide, but a fixed frame perimeter with ground clearance of 2-10 inches seems to make that impossible now.

[Christopher149]

A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is 1) within 5° of horizontal and 2) any Robots touching it are fully supported by it.

or

A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is (within 5° of horizontal and any Robots touching it are fully supported by it).

The English breaks the other way.

[372 lives on]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Is it just me or does this rule imply that as long as you are touching the bridge and it is within 5°, you are fully supported by it?

So drive up and drop an arm on it and technically you're fully supported...

For me this clarification just made the rule more unclear.

yeah I agree... I read this for the first time and I was like wait wut?.....
less pronouns please GDC?

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is 1) within 5° of horizontal and 2) any Robots touching it are fully supported by it.

or

A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is (within 5° of horizontal and any Robots touching it are fully supported by it).

The English breaks the other way.

I think it should probably be rephrased "any Robot touching the Bridge must be fully supported by it"

[s_forbes]

Is it just me or did robots on the bridge during end game just become worth a whole lot more?

Originally Posted by kickoff manual, G40

When the final score is assessed per [G37], a Balanced Alliance Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, earn points as follows:

Originally Posted by update 1, G40

When the final score is assessed per [G37], Robots completely supported by a Balanced Alliance Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, earn points as follows:

#robots, qualification, elimination
1 10 10
2 20 20
3 20 40

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

Is it just me or did robots on the bridge during end game just become worth a whole lot more?

I think so, although I don't think that's what they intended. I does very clearly say the robots are the ones getting the points now, not the bridge. There are some other issues associated with the new wording as well, in regards to how [G25] is assessed.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

I meant just the update. Last year's updates were in PDF form that I could print out and put in my binder with the manual.

I brought this up when they demoed the new manual format. This format just doesn't look professional enough. I was glad they released the PDF versions of the rules but they need to release them for every update as well.

Here's the thread on the FIRST Forums http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=18306