Go to Post You lame pig farmer! I'm not talking about a bunch of dudes sitting around eating their packed lunches that Mommy made. - Paul Copioli [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 01:33
JB987 JB987 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Joe Barry
FRC #0987 (HIGH ROLLERS)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: May 2006
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: LAS VEGAS
Posts: 1,175
JB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond repute
2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Just wondering how may teams out there are awaiting a "helpful" reply to this question relating to the legality of (what many consider) one appendage that has two parallel arms attached mechanically and structurally so that they act as a singular appendage as they pivot to extend outside the robot...


Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. If two members of a mechanism crosses one edge of a robot in two locations but the two members are connected via one axle and are controlled by one motor is this still considered one appendage?
Answer is in pending state
FRC1221 2012-01-14


So do you go ahead and build this "appendage" knowing that sometime down the road you may or may not find out your time and effort was worth it?
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 01:52
Aren Siekmeier's Avatar
Aren Siekmeier Aren Siekmeier is offline
on walkabout
FRC #2175 (The Fighting Calculators)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: 대한민국
Posts: 735
Aren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Honestly I think this has more reason to be the most anticipated Q&A response.

It may even be considered allowable to have two separate mechanical extensions, but that are otherwise linked to always operate in tandem and in a repeatable fashion (via code), count as a single appendage. But it would be really nice to know for sure. I'm hoping for an answer in the update tomorrow, or at the very least soon in the Q&A.

As for what to do in the meantime: have contingency plans; come up with and test ideas that work in multiple scenarios. Since we are not in a rush to build anything final until about a week from now, we can wait a short while to know what's right, but we don't have all the time in the world. If you are running out of time, go with what's safe, an appendage which is undeniably a single appendage.
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 01:55
Akash Rastogi Akash Rastogi is offline
Jim Zondag is my Spirit Animal
FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Manchester, Connecticut
Posts: 7,003
Akash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB987 View Post
Just wondering how may teams out there are awaiting a "helpful" reply to this question relating to the legality of (what many consider) one appendage that has two parallel arms attached mechanically and structurally so that they act as a singular appendage as they pivot to extend outside the robot...


Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. If two members of a mechanism crosses one edge of a robot in two locations but the two members are connected via one axle and are controlled by one motor is this still considered one appendage?
Answer is in pending state
FRC1221 2012-01-14


So do you go ahead and build this "appendage" knowing that sometime down the road you may or may not find out your time and effort was worth it?
We were wondering this same thing, but in the end decided that we can just bend some tubing to avoid trouble.
__________________
My posts and opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my affiliated team.
['16-'xx]: Mentor FRC 2170 | ['11-'13]: Co-Founder/Mentor FRC 3929 | ['06-'10]: Student FRC 11 - MORT | ['08-'12]: Founder - EWCP (OG)
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 01:58
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is online now
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,805
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

That's the one thing I don't understand. The Q&A has probably half a dozen questions on appendages alone, and a number of them are "does this scenario count as an appendage?" type questions. I would think that the GDC would see that this is an issue that needs answering. So why hasn't it been answered?

My guess is, whichever GDC member is the "appendage rules expert" hasn't seen the Q&A yet. (It seems that certain question types are answered in groups, both last year and this year; this leads one to speculate that various GDC members are experts in various parts of the Manual. I don't know if this is actually the case, however.) If that is the case, then hopefully another GDC member nudges him/her to answer... some of these questions have been kicking around for a week now.
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 04:51
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

I seriously hope they realize that defining an appendage based on its construction is a losing game.

Thought experiment: I have a plastic toy trident which can be installed on my robot in several possible orientations, and which can be actuated in several ways during a match. (Imagine the craziest possible positions for this thing, with varying degrees of overhang, flexibility, etc..) If I poll 5 trained, experienced referees about the legality of all of these configurations, can I expect to get 5 identical, correct sets of answers? What if I repeat the test with 5 GDC members?

Almost certainly, the answer is no. Nobody knows what an appendage is, or where it begins, because that definition is not in the rules, and does not obviously follow from an ordinary person's understanding of any given robot design.

Mechanisms can do all sorts of weird stuff, and can take all sorts of forms. You don't want to end up with a definition that makes something an appendage in some positions, and two or more appendages in others. It's also a bad idea because it's non-obvious, and will be full of nuanced interpretations. Good luck getting every referee to call that the same way every time.*

The real way forward is to fix the definitions of frame perimeter and side (so that they properly account for curvilinear figures, and elegantly handle projections into the corners adjacent to two sides), and then allow only one side to be overhung at a time. No mention of what's overhanging, or how many—just a clear test that be applied by a referee with no knowledge of how various mechanisms are actuated.

*That's most assuredly not a slight against referees. The fact is, all officials will struggle with complicated definitions applied to complicated robots. Referees have the additional problem that their struggle takes place in real time, in front of an audience. The stakes are high for them, and they'll be expected to get this right. That's not easy.
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 05:10
MikeReilly's Avatar
MikeReilly MikeReilly is offline
Registered User
FRC #4509 (Mechanical Bulls)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Sugar Hill, GA
Posts: 72
MikeReilly has much to be proud ofMikeReilly has much to be proud ofMikeReilly has much to be proud ofMikeReilly has much to be proud ofMikeReilly has much to be proud ofMikeReilly has much to be proud ofMikeReilly has much to be proud ofMikeReilly has much to be proud ofMikeReilly has much to be proud of
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

They are probably just waiting on wording. Look at the simulator, they have the type of appendage you're talking about. The intent of the rule is not to spread out multiple sides like wings, etc., is my guess.
__________________
Mentor for Rookie Team 4509, Formerly with 1771
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 12:42
LH Machinist LH Machinist is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North East
Posts: 48
LH Machinist has a spectacular aura aboutLH Machinist has a spectacular aura aboutLH Machinist has a spectacular aura about
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

We have answers...kind of

A. There is no explicit width limit for a Robot appendage. Per Rule [R21], "Robots may extend one appendage up to 14 in. beyond a single edge of their Frame Perimeter at any time."

A. There is no formal definition of appendage, however a colloquial definition is "a subordinate part attached to something; an auxiliary part; addition" (courtesy of disctionary.com). To elaborate, an Appendage is a contiguous assembly that may extend beyond the Frame Perimeter per Rule [G21].

Contiguous - From Websters
1: being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point of angles
2: adjacent 2
3: next or near in time or sequence
4: touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence <contiguous row houses>
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 16:32
Aren Siekmeier's Avatar
Aren Siekmeier Aren Siekmeier is offline
on walkabout
FRC #2175 (The Fighting Calculators)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: 대한민국
Posts: 735
Aren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

So it appears according to today's answers that a mechanical linkage, e.g. a mechanically contiguous assembly in any way, will be considered a single appendage. No mention of whether this connection is inside or outside the frame means that it doesn't matter. Good to know this is the way they are thinking, and beyond that I think we can safely use common sense.
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 16:56
Brandon Holley's Avatar
Brandon Holley Brandon Holley is offline
Chase perfection. Catch excellence.
AKA: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
FRC #0125 (NU-TRONs, Team #11 Alumni (GO MORT))
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,593
Brandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Brandon Holley
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiztobe View Post
So it appears according to today's answers that a mechanical linkage, e.g. a mechanically contiguous assembly in any way, will be considered a single appendage. No mention of whether this connection is inside or outside the frame means that it doesn't matter. Good to know this is the way they are thinking, and beyond that I think we can safely use common sense.
This now opens up the question that if its two mechanically independent systems operating in unison (and assumedly being used for the same/similar task), does this still satisfy the requirement?

-Brando
__________________
MORT (Team 11) '01-'05 :
-2005 New Jersey Regional Chairman's Award Winners
-2013 MORT Hall of Fame Inductee

NUTRONs (Team 125) '05-???
2007 Boston Regional Winners
2008 & 2009 Boston Regional Driving Tomorrow's Technology Award
2010 Boston Regional Creativity Award
2011 Bayou Regional Finalists, Innovation in Control Award, Boston Regional Finalists, Industrial Design Award
2012 New York City Regional Winners, Boston Regional Finalists, IRI Mentor of the Year
2013 Orlando Regional Finalists, Industrial Design Award, Boston Regional Winners, Pine Tree Regional Finalists
2014 Rhode Island District Winners, Excellence in Engineering Award, Northeastern University District Winners, Industrial Design Award, Pine Tree District Chairman's Award, Pine Tree District Winners
2015 South Florida Regional Chairman's Award, NU District Winners, NEDCMP Industrial Design Award, Hopper Division Finalists, Hopper/Newton Gracious Professionalism Award
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 17:03
Aren Siekmeier's Avatar
Aren Siekmeier Aren Siekmeier is offline
on walkabout
FRC #2175 (The Fighting Calculators)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: 대한민국
Posts: 735
Aren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond reputeAren Siekmeier has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Holley View Post
This now opens up the question that if its two mechanically independent systems operating in unison (and assumedly being used for the same/similar task), does this still satisfy the requirement?

-Brando
I would think not, and probably call it out as ref/inspector, because of how they appeal to a colloquial definition of appendage, regardless of function. I would want to see a mechanical connection.

Then of course you could tie a string between them to make them "contiguous," but I think that's why they don't want us lawyering the rules.
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 18:32
Brandon Holley's Avatar
Brandon Holley Brandon Holley is offline
Chase perfection. Catch excellence.
AKA: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
FRC #0125 (NU-TRONs, Team #11 Alumni (GO MORT))
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,593
Brandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon Holley has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Brandon Holley
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiztobe View Post
Then of course you could tie a string between them to make them "contiguous," but I think that's why they don't want us lawyering the rules.
I agree, thats why the rule seems kind worded kind of silly to me.
__________________
MORT (Team 11) '01-'05 :
-2005 New Jersey Regional Chairman's Award Winners
-2013 MORT Hall of Fame Inductee

NUTRONs (Team 125) '05-???
2007 Boston Regional Winners
2008 & 2009 Boston Regional Driving Tomorrow's Technology Award
2010 Boston Regional Creativity Award
2011 Bayou Regional Finalists, Innovation in Control Award, Boston Regional Finalists, Industrial Design Award
2012 New York City Regional Winners, Boston Regional Finalists, IRI Mentor of the Year
2013 Orlando Regional Finalists, Industrial Design Award, Boston Regional Winners, Pine Tree Regional Finalists
2014 Rhode Island District Winners, Excellence in Engineering Award, Northeastern University District Winners, Industrial Design Award, Pine Tree District Chairman's Award, Pine Tree District Winners
2015 South Florida Regional Chairman's Award, NU District Winners, NEDCMP Industrial Design Award, Hopper Division Finalists, Hopper/Newton Gracious Professionalism Award
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2012, 21:05
JB987 JB987 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Joe Barry
FRC #0987 (HIGH ROLLERS)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: May 2006
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: LAS VEGAS
Posts: 1,175
JB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

I suspect the given answer is a relief for many teams who have spent many days developing flip out, push out linked arm appendages... the GDC got this one conceptually right.
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-01-2012, 18:27
RRLedford RRLedford is offline
FTC 3507 Robo Theosis -- FRC 3135
AKA: Dick Ledford
FRC #3135 (Robotic Colonels)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 286
RRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

The key issue as I see it is whether or not multiple mechanisms that have either an interrelated/coordinated functional purpose or completely independent functional purposes, can be "contiguously" combined on a single arm that extends beyond the robot's "single edge" (this term is totally vague too - what happens if you deploy off a corner: can you go out 14" X 1.414?).

As long as various mechanisms & their components are purposed for one one function and are contigouosly attached to a single extension arm, this would seem to be within the "spirit" of the rule.

However, what happens if your appendage can extend to grab balls off the floor and then swing up, allowing ball transfer to a separate, but still arm-attached, shooter assembly, that proceeds to fire a scoring shot? Does this violate the "spirit" of the rule. Does the "spirit" of the rule imply only a single functional purpose per each appendage?

-RRLedford

Last edited by RRLedford : 21-01-2012 at 18:30.
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2012, 02:38
Squillo Squillo is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cynthia Hannah-White
FRC #2465 (Kauaibots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Kauai, Hawaii
Posts: 153
Squillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant future
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Anyone else notice that this has changed (in the Q&A)?

Q: What is the Definition of "Appendage"?

NEW answer:
A. There is no formal definition of appendage, however a colloquial definition is "a subordinate part attached to something; an auxiliary part; addition" (courtesy of disctionary.com). To elaborate, an appendage, when extended beyond the Frame Perimeter, is a contiguous assembly.

OLD answer:
A. There is no formal definition of appendage, however a colloquial definition is "a subordinate part attached to something; an auxiliary part; addition" (courtesy of disctionary.com). To elaborate, an Appendage is a contiguous assembly that may extend beyond the Frame Perimeter per Rule [G21].

I have to assume that this change was intentional, and has meaning. I interpreted the OLD answer to mean that as long as it was contiguous, it could extend past the perimeter. The NEW answer seems to mean that it must be "continguous" past the perimeter. So if the connection is within the perimeter, and it's two separate things outside the perimeter, then it's two appendages, even though they are connected?

Help?!!! This is so confusing (and critical to our team - we thought we were OK but now I'm not so sure). I have a feeling the GDC will just keep repeating this (new) answer, but what do you all think it means?
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2012, 09:00
wilhitern1's Avatar
wilhitern1 wilhitern1 is offline
Sr. Systems Analyst / BRM
AKA: Neal Wilhite
FRC #1225 (Gorillas)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Hendersinville, NC
Posts: 147
wilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to all
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squillo View Post
The NEW answer seems to mean that it must be "continguous" past the perimeter. So if the connection is within the perimeter, and it's two separate things outside the perimeter, then it's two appendages, even though they are connected?
To me that seems to be a good point. Additionally, I'd say that they wanted to say that appendage rules don't apply within the vertical perimeter (remembering the vertical cylinder from last year.

Additionally, I'd imagine that your point would be handled very leniently. Imagine one of the hands from last year with two prongs that grab the tube (this year the ball) and are 4 inches long, but the mechanism holding them takes up your other 10 inches. Withdrawn into the robot and facing out, you then have to extend them. At some time only 2 inches are protruding. By rule they are seperate appendages, but not in practice and therefore I think that they will not be ruled as such.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:57.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi