How is 54" size limit being inspected?

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

We aren't competing until the 4th week ( and the 5th and the 6th)
Can anyone enlighten me as to how a team needs to confirm that they meet the 54" rule?

Are inspectors asking this question? Are they asking a team to expand to its full size and measuring..??

just wondering.
We have a CAD drawing that shows our extensions to give an inspector to show how we meet the rule.

thanks!

We printed off a few cad models to prove that we didn't exceed 54". The inspector said he appreciated this. To manually check, he took a measuring tape, and measured from furthest point to furthest point.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Gregor

We printed off a few cad models to prove that we didn't exceed 54". The inspector said he appreciated this. To manually check, he took a measuring tape, and measured from furthest point to furthest point.

This is not the correct way to check. Our robot (see signature) is very close to being over the 54" limit, I think we were within about 1/2 an inch. The maximum point method will pass illegal robots. See the below picture for an explanation:

http://i.imgur.com/pDNlj09.jpg

At Fingerlakes, after an Inspector tried this method, we informed him why it was wrong and they pulled out a prinout of a 54" circle, which they projected upwards with an ruler. This seems like the correct method to use.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

This is not the correct way to check. Our robot (see signature) is very close to being over the 54" limit, I think we were within about 1/2 an inch. The maximum point method will pass illegal robots. See the below picture for an explanation:

http://i.imgur.com/pDNlj09.jpg

At Fingerlakes, after an Inspector tried this method, we informed him why it was wrong and they pulled out a prinout of a 54" circle, which they projected upwards with an ruler. This seems like the correct method to use.

Agreed, that makes much more sense. We never got pulled to the printout at Finger Lakes though. I was surprised that this wasn't standardized between different regional, but how can the cylinder not be measured the same way within a regional?

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Agreed, that makes much more sense. We never got pulled to the printout at Finger Lakes though. I was surprised that this wasn't standardized between different regional, but how can the cylinder not be measured the same way within a regional?

As I understand it, the measuring tape was supposed to be used to get a rough idea of whether they were at risk of breaking the cylinder. They subtracted a portion from the 54" to account for the circular nature of the cylinder and measured that. If you were close, you'd get pulled to the real circle for a closer inspection.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

As I understand it, the measuring tape was supposed to be used to get a rough idea of whether they were at risk of breaking the cylinder. They subtracted a portion from the 54" to account for the circular nature of the cylinder and measured that. If you were close, you'd get pulled to the real circle for a closer inspection.

We were right on the verge as shown in our CAD, we were within 1/2" of 54". We clearly told the inspector this, which is why I'm confused.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

This is not the correct way to check. Our robot (see signature) is very close to being over the 54" limit, I think we were within about 1/2 an inch. The maximum point method will pass illegal robots. See the below picture for an explanation:

http://i.imgur.com/pDNlj09.jpg

At Fingerlakes, after an Inspector tried this method, we informed him why it was wrong and they pulled out a prinout of a 54" circle, which they projected upwards with an ruler. This seems like the correct method to use.

The point to point method will still work if the inspector measures from the bumper corner to the mechanism corner (at least for most cases), but I could see this being missed. EDIT: doh, math. No it wont.

I was looking forward to seeing a cylindrical sizing box this year, but given the quality of sizing boxes in the past, I probably would have hated it.