Team Update 1-15-2013

[THE DYNAMO]

when this update came out, I realize that our ingenious and rather fast climbing design was previous illegal, but it is now 100% ok. sighs of relief all around our shop table, but i can see it's not so great for other teams. sorry to all those team out there, i know how it feels since our balancing arms from last year were ruled out late in the season because they sometimes touched the polycarb sheet under the bridge.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by dellagd

Has FIRST ever made such a big change like this before?

The Great Tape Measure Fiasco in '02 (Zone Zeal). Game was shooting soccer balls in movable goals. You got points for all the balls in a goal on the opposite side of the field from your driver station. You ALSO got points if part of your robot was on the same side of the field as your driver station.

Obviously an incentive to be in two places at once. Teams Q&A'd for ruling on what constituted an entanglement hazard, etc. and it seemed clear that anything long and flimsy was an entanglement hazard and illegal. So some teams went to a lot of trouble making mini-robots or rigid extension devices to reach across the field to score those bonus points.

Week 1 regionals and some few teams show up with motorized tape measures that they shoot across the field. Which seemed obviously illegal. Except the GDC ruled that they were, in fact, legal because they

And thus all the teams that put in a lot of work and engineering to come up with a non-entangling solution were really miffed at a huge rule change after the end of build season.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Week 1 regionals and some few teams show up with motorized tape measures that they shoot across the field. Which seemed obviously illegal. Except the GDC ruled that they were, in fact, legal because they

Wait why? This was a very interesting story, pity you stopped right when it was getting interesting

[Steve Kaneb]

I think the despair expressed in this thread might be premature.

The updated rule reads (in part):

Originally Posted by 2k13 FRC Manual

While in contact with the PYRAMID, a ROBOT

may not have its horizontal dimensions exceed a 54 in. diameter vertical cylinder relative to the ROBOT

Nowhere in this rule do the words "in its starting configuration" appear. It's most likely that in any configuration where your robot can fit within a virtual 54" cylinder that extends "vertically", while still fulfilling the rules of robot height (not to exceed 84") and the rule about the vertical plane that extends from a line 54" from the pyramid, that your robot is legally within the volume limits.

I foresee a referee noting a possible infraction, then checking after the match by having the team reposition their robot as it was when he had doubts to its legality (even if it has to stand on a bumper!). Once the robot is in the configuration, a hoop is passed over the robot. If the hoop can be extended vertically without contacting the robot, the robot was legal.

[efoote868]

When you look at the rule change, it seems that the intent of the rule could be to prevent a team from latching on to the pyramid and then extending towards the side of the playing field, in order to attempt to blockade the field (circumventing the other rule?).

[chadr03]

Here is my interpretation of the new rule and how is kills our design that was so close to sending parts our to be machined. I hope the GDC changes its mind. Since in all likelihood this bot will not come to life in its current form I thought I would share.


Old Rules - Legal

New Rules - Illegal

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

I would be extremely surprised if this early even 5% of teams had sent drawings out for parts to be made. Queue that 5% in 3, 2, 1...

You called? We have already put in over 12 hours of machine setup and run time for parts and spent thousands of dollars on parts and materials. Thank goodness this change does not in any way affect our design.

[artdutra04]

Tristan already brought up some good points as how the definition of coordinate systems affects what is "relative to the robot".

IMHO, simplest way to word the volume restriction rule would be to state that:

Originally Posted by Potential way for FIRST to reword this update to make it clearer

The robot must fit into a Ø54" x 60"/84" cylinder at all times.

Such wording would not include any limitations as to how you define the orientation of your cylinder. A good way to visualize this is using a giant bucket test.

Basically, at any given point in time, your robot must be able to be dropped into a giant virtual bucket that's Ø54" x 60"/84". As long as it can fit inside this bucket in some orientation, it's a legal configuration.

Much simpler for people to comprehend, and it does not negatively affect teams who based their designs on the pre 2013-01-15 update rulings.

[BornaE]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

Our climbing solution is now illegal.

We had clearly defined parameters at the beginning of the build season. Why on Earth would they change now?

how could it have been leegal before and illegal now?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Basically, at any given point in time, your robot must be able to be dropped into a giant virtual bucket that's Ø54" x 60"/84". As long as it can fit inside this bucket in some orientation, it's a legal configuration.

Much simpler for people to comprehend, and it does not negatively affect teams who based their designs on the pre 2013-01-15 update rulings.

That's what I'm hoping they do as well. (Apart from the thing that could be mistaken for a division slash in your example—but I think FIRST can figure out appropriate wording that fits the rulebook.)

It allows officials to use the least-restrictive interpretation of what it means to be robot-oriented, and lets much of the existing design work stand.

On the other hand, it may go against the GDC's intent, but that's the price FIRST needs to pay for not adequately capturing the intent in the first two versions.

More practically, it's hard to judge the size of a 3-D cylinder superimposed over a moving robot climbing an obstacle. But since it was hard enough to judge the size of that cylinder when it was oriented with respect to an obvious reference, presumably FIRST has thought about this sort of thing and can devise some way of enforcing it when the orientation is completely arbitrary. (Hopefully "ignore it" doesn't figure into the final cut.)

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by BornaE

how could it have been leegal before and illegal now?

If the robot is not close to parallel to the ground while climbing, a hanger that was legal before would be illegal now. 1529 has a good example of a now illegal climber on their blog: http://frc1529.wordpress.com/

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by chadr03

Here is my interpretation of the new rule and how is kills our design that was so close to sending parts our to be machined. I hope the GDC changes its mind. Since in all likelihood this bot will not come to life in its current form I thought I would share.

Pictures

I'd also be worried about the cylinder when you first start your climb.

Do you have a cylinder model of your robot when it is still on the floor, and has just grabbed on to the 1st rung?

Most corner climbers with a squarish to longish drivetrain will have a hard time reaching the 1st rung without breaking the cylinder.

Not impossible, but it's very tight.

[Tom Line]

Hopefully this is just a wording inconsistency and a clarification will be coming where the GDC states they did not just 'turn the rule on it's side'.

/pun intended.

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Tristan already brought up some good points as how the definition of coordinate systems affects what is "relative to the robot".

IMHO, simplest way to word the volume restriction rule would be to state that:



Such wording would not include any limitations as to how you define the orientation of your cylinder. A good way to visualize this is using a giant bucket test.

Basically, at any given point in time, your robot must be able to be dropped into a giant virtual bucket that's Ø54" x 60"/84". As long as it can fit inside this bucket in some orientation, it's a legal configuration.

Much simpler for people to comprehend, and it does not negatively affect teams who based their designs on the pre 2013-01-15 update rulings.

And that would make it consistent with FTC definitions as I understand them - your robot has to fit in a box in any orientation (I don't know FTC rules, someone told me this when we were sizing the minibot). Oh no, a new sizing box! Al, bring the forktruck back in.

Thankfully our design -which we spent excessive time on to get it within the previous rules - will still work with the new definition. Probably would have saved us half the week if we had this definition to start wth. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by Jibsy

...teams who are actually going to be climbing successfully to the 30 points (perhaps only a few) already (had) a design that was well on its way, probably nearing completion.

Which is exactly where we were.

"...I get the feeling the kids won't be very phased tomorrow"

I'm not so sure I agree with you. For my small town team who just started getting noticed by the corporations (think funding) we have been courting for 6 years we were looking forward to possibly the best robot we have ever built/designed. We have (had) a corner climbing bot that we belived would be among the best climbers out there...now? Who knows what we will do until the team meets this evening. With limited engineering resources and funding this has the potential to hurt the morale of more than you may think. Frankly I know it has damaged mine.