|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Yes, that ("after deployment") would be perfect! I agree that it would even be consistent with the prior, Y-shaped answer. Bingo!
|
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
But, if the "after deployment" section is indeed added then the questions become, what is "deployment" and when is "after." If my appendage interacts with a feild element, a bridge for example, and is then further intentionally articulated to affect the position of a feild element, as many tippers aim to do, am I deploying my appendage, or has it been deployed into action.
To continue, the "after" statement would also allow bending of the rules such that teams could claim their fingered ball roller was continuously being deployed and is thus in exception to needing to be contiginous. Why can we not just be allowed to extend 14 inches past any one plane projected vertically from the backing of any one bumper section. This rule and the following Q and A have gotten out of hand. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Shouldn't you have to show the appendage(s) deployed at inspection?
|
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
Q. If an extension forks outside of the frame perimeter, does it count as a single extension? For example, if 7" away from the frame, the appendage splits into two separate bars. A. Only one appendage may extend beyond the Frame Perimeter. There are no rules prohibiting appendages that fork once outside the Frame Perimeter. It seems the gisted question is whether "once" refers to a segment of time or a segment of space. Given the question's reference to space in this capacity ("splits" takes place in a specific place as measured in inches, not a specific time), I'd venture that it's the latter. Of course, I don't know. Perhaps what they need to do is define it as "after deployment, or when it intentionally comes in contact with a Court element (whichever comes first)". This would seem to preclude the potential loopholes above. Tuba4: Of course; this is true of all appendages. Johnr: Our current problem is defining what "deployed" means, but much of this call will actually be left up to the Refs in-game under G21, as teams may well have a robot that could meet R02 but doesn't (e.g. has two appendages, and extends both at the same time). The Inspectors also have R02, but the inspection list has yet to be published. Does anyone remember when the Inspection Checklist usually comes out? |
|
#65
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
If you're depending on getting the "right" wording on the inspection checklist for a mechanism on your robot to be legal, you might want to redesign the mechanism NOW ![]() |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
I haven't checked this thread for a while.
If the GDC had more thoughtfully considered our concerns regarding the points I was trying to zero in on with my earlier posts (for which I was accused of lawyer-ing the rules), their latest answer might have been more comprehensively clear cut. -RRLedford |
|
#67
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
The GDC just replied to my question about appendages during deployment. It's pretty clear now...they must always be contiguous:
Here is the question and response: Q. To prevent differing interpretations of G21 and the following Q&As on appendages could you address the legality of a appendage BRIEFLY crossing the frame perimeter in multiple places during deployment? For example, a "H" shaped appendage might cross in two places as it quickly folds out. A. Any time the appendage is outside the Frame Perimeter, it must be a contiguous piece. |
|
#68
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Well this is a puzzler. I feel the the GDC has gone one of only a few ways that would create a logically bulletproof interpretation so good on them for that. On the other hand I suspect that lots of teams that don't frequent these forums will get a nasty surprise when they show up for regionals. Lots of teams will have a robot whose minor infraction makes it completely illegal. I wonder how FIRST will address that?
Also I think there should be some provision added to allow for small protrusions such as bolts, because otherwise if two bolt heads happened to cross the frame perimeter before anything else you are still illegal. |
|
#69
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
Until this morning I had hope that FIRST would finally go an entire season without making an inane ruling about some aspect of the game. In 2010, the inane ruling was that small rivet and bolt heads could not be considered exempt from frame perimeter calculations, and everyone had to add 1/8" shims to their frame. In 2011, the inane ruling was that pre-punched metal (that otherwise met all the restrictions of the minibot rules) was prohibited unless it was a Tetrix part. In 2012, the inane ruling is that mechanisms that common sense says are clearly one contiguous appendage but happen to have two (or more) points cross the frame perimeter plane before the contiguous section does are illegal. |
|
#70
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
![]() |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Wow, i read that completely differently. The answer says ," the appendage". I took that to mean the appendage as a whole and once outside frame it must be one unit.
|
|
#72
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Can anyone tell me how to make and 'H' shaped appendage that is contiguous during deployment? Or even a 'Y' shaped one for that matter? I guess back to the drawing board to make some sort of 'T' shaped device or upside down 'U'. And there goes any type of whips or bristles on the end of the appendage. I agree with someone who posted earlier that a green box telling us the intent of the rule might have been nice. All the GDC had to say is "do not make any type of sweeper to collect balls our intent of this rule is to make small T-rex arms to lower the bridge." For give me if I'm a little bitter about this ruling. I'm still in shock that the layering of this rule has gotten to this point.
|
|
#73
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
i think that perhaps we are actually seeing a response to "don't lawyer the rules"
The rules committee was pushed into a corner...had to make a decision and now (after 3 + weeks) we have that decision. I doubt seriously if they were going to tell the inspectors that this was the interpretation at the beginning of the season, it was going to be a loose definition of appendage probably.. If they did have that idea at the beginning and never told the teams it would have been a disaster at regionals so I doubt that this was their intention. By asking all of our questions we have forced them into a narrow interpretation of this rule and now we have to live with it. I think, now that we have created this narrow definition, it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that ALL teams know about it. (It would seem that this should be done through an update but) Update or not we HAVE to tell all of those other teams that don't follow the Q and A. (Or even sometimes the updates...) As a community we could easily say that it is all of their responsibility to do this themselves but this would not be gracious. Many teams (especially newer teams) don't look at CD and some don't even know about the Q and A. I don't even think that team contacts are sent an email when an Update comes out any more... Young teams are struggling just to build something. We need to help them understand the rules so we can all compete together. I know as an inspector last year I had teams struggle with the bumper rules. I mentioned the Q and A and they stated they didn't have time to watch it... it was difficult to pour through... this year it is substantially improved but still many teams won't use it.. Let's get the word out... |
|
#74
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
Or use two separate controlled motions to move the appendage out and then swing down... I hope this helps some... Good luck |
|
#75
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
Quote:
I also agree with you that we appear to have blocked the GDC into a corner but it seemed necessary to keep all the inspections and ref calls equal across the whole season. I would hate for week 1 to be judge differently than week 6. I am glad we got a finite ruling now so we can finish our design. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with something |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|