Team 1538 - 2012 Robot

[engunneer]

Originally Posted by czeke

Also don't be surprised if you get a violation for rule G21. Our team was at a mini-Regional, with the head inspector from the Wisconsin Regional there. We had a ball pickingup device, similar to yours.It extended partially beyond the frame perimeter. He declared that it was illegal, since the polychord was not contiguous. It was within the frame perimeter and then outside the frame perimeter, as it rotated, attempting to pickup balls. Because of that he said we'd be hit with a rules violation. We were forced to redesign our unit, so as not to extend beyond the frame.

[G21]
Robots may extend one appendage up to 14 in. beyond a single edge of their frame perimeter at any time.
Violation: Foul for exceeding size allotments; Technical-Foul for continuous or repeated violations.

[blue box]
These appendages are intended for use in manipulating Basketballs and/or Bridges. A Robot may have multiple extension devices onboard, but only one may be deployed at a given time.

All portions of an appendage that are outside the Frame Perimeter must be contiguous with each other. Very brief violations of the contiguity requirement as a single appendage is being extended or retracted will not be penalized.[/blue box]

That looks legal to me. I'd like to see a picture of yours, but I have a feeling that you may not have needed to modify it. Clearly on FRC1538's bot, everything comes down at once. As the assembly itself is contiguous, it should be ok.

Was he saying the belts weren't contiguous because they were partly in the frame and partly out of it? Or was he concerned that the belts were the leading edge, so as you lowered it, there is a moment where the tips of a few belts are breaking the plane? The brief violation note should get you through here. It's clearly the intent of the rule that transitioning between flipped up and down shouldn't cause a penalty.

[czeke]

He was saying that the entire assembly is not considered to be contiguous. As I understood it, the leading edge, was in motion ( the polycord belts ). When I asked him " What if we covered it, with a Lexan cover ?" , then he responded, saying that he would favor our argument. Either way, it isn't a very clear rule, and it seriously effected us, to the point where, we abondoned our strategy of reaching out for balls, and had to redesign that system. He also stated, that it would be up to the head referee, to make that determination. It's sort of a rotten way to incur a penalty, by not clarifying the rules. In another related system, our ball thrower, uses a rotating turret. When the turret rotates, say about 30-45 degrees, our CIM motor, breaks the plane of the frame perimeter, on the left side and our spinning wheels break the front plane of the frame perimeter. That's two appendages sticking out, not one, as we had thought. We were once again illegal. The only good thing was, that we found out two days before bag-n-tag, and we could correct it.

[engunneer]

Originally Posted by czeke

He was saying that the entire assembly is not considered to be contiguous. As I understood it, the leading edge, was in motion ( the polycord belts ). When I asked him " What if we covered it, with a Lexan cover ?" , then he responded, saying that he would favor our argument.

If all of the parts of the pickup mechanism are touching each other at the same time outside the single edge of the frame perimeter, then they are contiguous. The fact that one part is able to rotate on bearings does not make it not-contiguous, as far as I can determine from the intent of the rule. I would love to see Al's interpretation of this or the GDC's. Without seeing a before picture, I can't be certain I am understanding you correctly. This discussion should become a separate topic, since we are hijacking the thread of a great looking robot.

Originally Posted by czeke

In another related system, our ball thrower, uses a rotating turret. When the turret rotates, say about 30-45 degrees, our CIM motor, breaks the plane of the frame perimeter, on the left side and our spinning wheels break the front plane of the frame perimeter. That's two appendages sticking out, not one, as we had thought. We were once again illegal. The only good thing was, that we found out two days before bag-n-tag, and we could correct it.

This is an entirely different story. The CIM breaking a plane while your feeder mech is breaking the plane is clearly not within [G21]. The shooter wheels popping out the other side? Also not good with [G21]. If your feeder was retracted, and only the CIM *OR* the Shooter Wheel was breaking the plane, then it is ok under [G21].