Team Update 1-15-2013

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by chadr03

img

Can we have a few more dimensions?

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Can we have a few more dimensions?

See this thread I started showing the 54in cylinder, pyramid, and typical robot profiles. It works. It's close, but it works.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

See this thread I started showing the 54in cylinder, pyramid, and typical robot profiles. It works. It's close, but it works.

I meant his robot dimensions. It seems awfully small to keep his arm inside the frame perimeter for starting.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by chadr03

Good, just making sure.

[Cal578]

Originally Posted by Cal578

Our design was similar, and now appears to be illegal. I've submitted to the Q&A on this.
Q184

I agree with what a few others have said: I hope the GDC clarifies that the old designs are still legal.

I just got the answer to my Q184.

Q. Per G23-1, is it legal if a robot climbs the corner of the pyramid (robot frame is parallel to the corner bar), and extends an appendage towards the second rung for a total distance of 70 inches? http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=66 has a good picture of this.
A. The purpose of this forum is to clarify Rules. We will not use it to declare strategies or designs unequivocally legal as there are factors in play beyond this forum. The 54 in. cylinder is not fixed to a specific reference point on the ROBOT when the ROBOT is contacting the PYRAMID. In other words, if a 54 in. right cylinder with a height of 84 in. could, in at least one orientation, fit around the ROBOT, the ROBOT is in compliance with [G23-1]-A.

(emphasis mine)

As I read it, previous designs should still be legal. I'm pretty sure ours is. Woohoo!

[Jibsy]

The purpose of this forum is to clarify Rules. We will not use it to declare strategies or designs unequivocally legal as there are factors in play beyond this forum. The 54 in. cylinder is not fixed to a specific reference point on the ROBOT when the ROBOT is contacting the PYRAMID. In other words, if a 54 in. right cylinder with a height of 84 in. could, in at least one orientation, fit around the ROBOT, the ROBOT is in compliance with [G23-1]-A.

Woo! Back to the old design! Thank goodness...

I feel like they could have been far more clear on the wording, but hey - I'm quite happy!

EDIT: Cal beat me to it.

[chadr03]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Can we have a few more dimensions?

Originally Posted by CalTran

I meant his robot dimensions. It seems awfully small to keep his arm inside the frame perimeter for starting.

You are right it is a pretty small bot the frame is in the 20" x 23" neighborhood. Tight fit for all of the electronics but doable. The arms would have to be extended up right to fit inside the frame perimeter/starting config, but would be shorter than 60"

Originally Posted by CalTran

The purpose of this forum is to clarify Rules. We will not use it to declare strategies or designs unequivocally legal as there are factors in play beyond this forum. The 54 in. cylinder is not fixed to a specific reference point on the ROBOT when the ROBOT is contacting the PYRAMID. In other words, if a 54 in. right cylinder with a height of 84 in. could, in at least one orientation, fit around the ROBOT, the ROBOT is in compliance with [G23-1]-A.

Thank you GDC. I don't have to pull my hair out now. I only had to give away about half of the trade secrets.

[BigJ]

I'm happy with the (pretty liberal ) interpretation of the word "relative" here. Hopefully the temporarily-illegal teams didn't redesign everything over the course of the school day.

[Jibsy]

Originally Posted by BigJ

I'm happy with the (pretty liberal ) interpretation of the word "relative" here. Hopefully the temporarily-illegal teams didn't redesign everything over the course of the school day.

I was sure working hard at adjusting the geometry of our current design to make it legal. I was having to make some pretty significant compromises though. But hey, I'm sure I learned a thing or two about it. Will probably be able to make our current climbing mechanism more compact.

[MechEng83]

Check out Frank's Blog post for today:
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...date-1-15-2013

In the words of one of our engineers, the new size cylinder rules are a superset of the old rules. Put another way: If you had designed a climbing robot legal under the old rules, it should still be legal under the new rules. If you can put any 54” right cylinder with a height of 84” around the robot, in any orientation, at any moment while it is climbing, and no part of the robot is more than 54” away from the base of the pyramid, your robot does not violate the new rules.

Emphasis in original quote.

[Tristan Lall]

That's one problem solved, I think. This was the best way to handle the issue.

Among the remaining problems is that the competitive balance has shifted: now climbing is an easier task, and thus teams that chose to do it may not be as unique as they were counting on. But that's definitely a lesser evil.

Also, teams that constrained their designs according to the original rule now have to decide whether they're still competitive in this somewhat larger design space (with robots that don't obey the original constraint). Although they're not forced to rework their design, they may nevertheless choose to do so, for fear of being less effective. Given the particulars of the challenge, I think that's at worst a medium-sized evil—but most likely a non-issue for most teams.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Welp. Those of us who had decided to concentrate on frisbee manipulation, design a simple ten-point hang, and not think about anything higher until after Stop Build Day are in luck. Thanks for the "temporarily illegal" design ideas, guys... I feel kind of dirty having seen them, but I can't exactly forget 'em now.

[Adam Freeman]

First off...THANK YOU GDC for the common sense approach to these design constraints.

Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo

Welp. Those of us who had decided to concentrate on frisbee manipulation, design a simple ten-point hang, and not think about anything higher until after Stop Build Day are in luck. Thanks for the "temporarily illegal" design ideas, guys... I feel kind of dirty having seen them, but I can't exactly forget 'em now.

Secondly, even with the relaxed design constraints this task is far from easy. "Climbing" a robot through three levels of pyramid, with at a minimum of maybe 3 (probably more) distict climbing motions is still the hardest thing we have had to do with a robot.

This challenge is frustrating even the very best designers in FRC.

If your design is not well thought out, designed for robustness, and executed perfectly you are probably not going to be attempting to climb the tower for very long before you fall off and break some or all of your robot.

Most designs we have thought of required total integration into the chassis, drivetrain, shooting, etc..., this is not just something you add on an event.

Good luck to all that attempt a 30pt climb.

[David Doerr]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

First off...THANK YOU GDC for the common sense approach to these design constraints.

Adam, I second that... THANK YOU! Did the GDC do this simply to inject more excitement into the build season? Good thing my doctor just changed my blood pressure medication.

The climbing parts we ordered just arrived a few hours ago, and now it's back to our original design. We'll see how successful we are getting it to work.

[Donut]

With this clarification the rule change just changed to one of my favorite updates from the GDC. This allows for the sizing cylinder to be parallel to the pyramid while the frame is not, which really opens up the design options.

Time to re-analyze the design again!