2013 Robot Dimensions

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Boe

I agree it led to a really diverse field of robot types that hasn't been seen recently, which was nice and really made this game one of the best from a strategists point of view. It would have been cool though to see some of the robots people could have made with the old size. Also perimeter should be the new measurement it lead to a lot of different looking robots, and also seemed to be a lot easier for inspectors to check.

Actually, it was harder for inspectors to check, but easier for teams to pass! with the sizing box in previous years, inspectors had it easy - they got to stand back while teams tried to shove their robot into the box. This year, inspectors had to pull out the tape measure and work their way around the entire robot, making sure the tape wasn't going over a "minor protrusion" and was pulled tight. Much more work for the inspector

[DELurker]

27" x 27" with a 1" last-minute add-on to bring the shooter deck back inside the frame perimeter when open at the start of a match...

[HumblePie]

We were configured long, 6 wheel tank, 32.5 x 23.75. The length was largely driven by the 31 inch nanotubes and wheels.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Actually, it was harder for inspectors to check, but easier for teams to pass! with the sizing box in previous years, inspectors had it easy - they got to stand back while teams tried to shove their robot into the box. This year, inspectors had to pull out the tape measure and work their way around the entire robot, making sure the tape wasn't going over a "minor protrusion" and was pulled tight. Much more work for the inspector

Really? I love not having the sizing box to further bog down the inspection station. More difficult (and sllooow) to handle the box + scale flow than just the scale. Re-checking is also a lot easier. I kept my tape measure as a ref as well (ok, so I did that before). The individual measuring action might not be better for inspectors, but I'd say the process is easier.

Did people actually do the "walk all the way around" thing? I thought that was a original intent, but then we were told (both as an inspector and as a mentor), that we'd just measure each side and add. The walk around's more accurate though.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Siri

Really? I love not having the sizing box to further bog down the inspection station. More difficult (and sllooow) to handle the box + scale flow than just the scale. Re-checking is also a lot easier. I kept my tape measure as a ref as well (ok, so I did that before). The individual measuring action might not be better for inspectors, but I'd say the process is easier.

Did people actually do the "walk all the way around" thing? I thought that was a original intent, but then we were told (both as an inspector and as a mentor), that we'd just measure each side and add. The walk around's more accurate though.

At both of the regionals I did and at Champs, we wrapped the tape measure around the entire robot in order to determine compliance.

[Chris is me]

We were 28W*26L. (No, it's not because I'm a Wave fanboy)

If I had to do it again, it would probably be 24W*30L

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

At both of the regionals I did and at Champs, we wrapped the tape measure around the entire robot in order to determine compliance.

Jeez, I hope they standardize this.


So keep the rule, regulate the procedure.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Siri

Jeez, I hope they standardize this.


So keep the rule, regulate the procedure.

I would guess this will be standardized (assuming the rule stays the same). One of the issues with radically changing a major rule like this is working out the kinks the first year... It's easy for the GDC to decide to change a rule (and frankly I love this rule change!), but once they do the inspectors have to "scramble" to figure out how to best enforce it - remember, we don't see the rules until everyone else does! That means we have 6 weeks as a widely spread out group to figure out how to enforce all the rules the same at all regionals (and keep in mind we have a bunch of bright LRI's who all have their own ideas on how things should be enforced), and sometimes word doesn't quite get to everyone regarding the process that's to be used, despite our best efforts.

In the end, though, I would personally be comfortable with either method as being "good enough". After all, what difference is a 1/4" going to make if you're a little over? It just mean's you're going to be spending some time and effort getting under (by filing the corners), without really changing your design. If we miss that 1/4" by measuring the sides and doing some math, I wouldn't really think that a team gets any sort of competitive advantage. I'd be more worried about inspectors confusing themselves trying to do the math under pressure while standing in front of a team!

[Jeffy]

We would have liked to go with a 38:28 ratio, but couldn't. We had a shooter proto w/ hopper in week one that we liked that was 26 inches wide. So we made the robot 26.5 inches which left the length to 29.5 inches.

We built the bot to the full spec of 112" knowing we could keep a tolerance to .125 inch over the entire bot. Our plan was that if we came in to long on the perimeter to take a smidge off the corner bumper mounts.