|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Quote:
|
|
#92
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
There's a lot of word substitution in this thread. If you guys would read the rules, and stop substituting translations in place of the literal words, the rules are quite clear.
The laws of physics pretty much derive everything else we need to know. Just like inserting one's own wishes into the laws of physics leads to epic fail, replacing rule wordings leads to unhappy FRC teams. Last edited by JesseK : 09-01-2013 at 14:48. |
|
#93
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Quote:
*Not doing so would be a violation of G05-C anyway. EDIT: This actually does have relevance to a viable CLIMBING strategy (not just flying). |
|
#94
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Quote:
|
|
#95
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
The laws of physics, 5 seconds after the end of the match. Oh, and that pesky line that's right underneath your quoted line in the rules, about sequential contact.
|
|
#96
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Quote:
2. Yes, and I have contacted the floor, which means I am considered to have climbed, no? A ROBOT has CLIMBED its PYRAMID if it contacts the PYRAMID and/or the floor (Level 0) in A. sequential order (Level 0, 1, 2, 3) during ascent and B. no more than two (2) Levels simultaneously. @pfreivald: ah, would you mind quoting this? I can't identify find which you're referring to: quick Q&A link. I only see 3 answered so far, and the only climbing contact one (Q6) is "Can the robot go from the floor to level 2 while climbing the pyramid or does it have to climb to level 1 first and then level 2?", which is not on point and just restates the rule above. *Legally by the laws of FIRST of course, the laws of physics are much more picky on that subject. But suspension, nonetheless. |
|
#97
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Quote:
|
|
#98
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
but could you say perhaps have a robot, on the floor, touch the first rung (level 1) then reach to level level 2 (second rung) and pull itself up?
That is, go from 0, to 1, to 2, but, let go of 1 before letting go of 0, as to only be in contact with 2 zones at a time? it seems to me this satisfies, sequential order, and only touching two at a time the rules do not demand using zone 1 to propel youreself to zone 2. you could do it from 0, as long as you contact zone 1, and let go of it before contacting zone 2. |
|
#99
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
by my interpretation of the rules JesseK is right.
A robot could fly up to the 3rd zone, as long as it kisses each level... |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#101
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
I see you poit, I guess the clarification needed is if that means "touched non-adjacent Levels" only
That is, if the climb restarts even if the clear intent is in making that all one climb. essentially, I think only an Official FIRST clarification can solve this... Both answers seem equally likely to be correct to me |
|
#102
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Quote:
I realize this is not a common scenario, but we do have a potential climbing apparatus that makes suspension largely trivial, so I'm curious. I'm not claiming it'll happen often, but there were a few suspensions in 2010. |
|
#103
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Interesting point Siri. Though I think that the coordination and resources spent in Robot A supporting Robot B above 30" would have been better spent by Robot A creating a solo 20-pt climber and picking a different Robot B which could do a 10-pt solo climb. With that said...
Essentially, since level 0 (the floor) is considered part of the climb now, nothing says a robot can't flop down a 1/16" thick ABS sheet (or whatever your favorite flavor of material is), have another robot drive onto it, and get 10 climb points anywhere on the field. As far as I can tell (solely from 3.1.5.2), it still fits the definition of a climb in the current form without any "interpretation". That's a creative perspective that is perfectly within the clear definition of the current rules... totally overlooked by many (like me) I bet. It's a perfectly legitimate way to 'climb' for a team who has next to no budget and is already close to the weight limit before adding a climbing device in. I suspect that this isn't the intent and will get updated out of strategy playbooks, but who knows. Last edited by JesseK : 09-01-2013 at 20:51. |
|
#104
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Quote:
Quote:
I don't care. It's not going to happen with sufficient frequency* to matter the slightest bit to my team. *I'd be shocked if it happens at all... |
|
#105
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Climbing Rules
Quote:
Given the number of people that wrote that off last year and similar work years prior, better to know now than at alliance selection. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|