The Not So-Secret Secret End-Game

[runneals]

Originally Posted by EricH

I predict that at some point during the competition season, a field fault will be declared when a robot carrying a ball inadvertently rams the truss and sends it over. The robot in question, sadly, may not survive.

I never once thought about that... since teams can build robots that are 5' and a ball is 2', if the ball is sticking up even ~3" you might have problems...

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by MarcD79

With all these posts I have yet to see anyone address HOW the Truss is mounted to the floor. There is nothing that I can see in the drawings that will prevent the truss from tipping over if a robot hits it squarely. If robots attempt to hang from it, there could be a swinging motion, which could tip it over.
FIRST would not put anyone's safety at risk by not providing adequate structural side-to-side support if they intended robots to hang from the truss later down the line. Yes there will be a lot of speculation & a lot of hopeful thinking, but maybe we need to look it square in the face & take it at face value. A truss to toss the ball over & remind teams of the height limit.
If on the other hand I have become narrow-minded, then I will eat my words.

The good news is that the robots themselves should not be hitting it squarely. The bottom of the truss is 5' 2" above the ground (rule 2.2.5), and the maximum robot height is 5' (R3). Although the field staff are occasionally lenient about a few extra inches on robots in the early rounds, we just have to make sure this isn't the case this year.

I believe that the bigger danger is the balls. A robot carrying a ball could very conceivably hit the truss (and likely will).

For now, I'm going to wait and see how week 0 events turn out. I trust that the GDC did a good amount of throwing balls at the truss to see how sturdy it was, but week 0 will be the real test. If it becomes a danger, I also trust that FIRST will add additional support during week 1 events.

[cadandcookies]

For the truss, also keep in mind that if the baseplate is steel, it weighs around 300 pounds. My team's pit uses a similar truss system with 50 pound baseplates, and it's very difficult to move even though it's essentially an open-sided cube.

I haven't done any calculations for tipping point on the truss, but I'm willing to bet it's a beast to knock over, especially if those are steel baseplates.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Tanis

The good news is that the robots themselves should not be hitting it squarely. The bottom of the truss is 5' 2" above the ground (rule 2.2.5), and the maximum robot height is 5' (R3). Although the field staff are occasionally lenient about a few extra inches on robots in the early rounds, we just have to make sure this isn't the case this year.
<snip>

Robots must pass inspection in order to play. Robot inspectors are responsible for insuring compliance with all robot rules. A 60.5" tall robot violates R3 and will not pass inspection.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Robots must pass inspection in order to play. Robot inspectors are responsible for insuring compliance with all robot rules. A 60.5" tall robot violates R3 and will not pass inspection.

I suspect he means they're lenient about size, weight, and all the other inspection requirements during the practice rounds, since robots don't have to pass inspection to play in practice matches. They can be banned from practice matches if the LRI, FTA, etc deem them unsafe, though. Which a 63" tall robot would probably be.

[atucker4072]

There is no secret end game! There is no way the GDC would have teams work on a build a robot then make a major rule change like that. Some teams have robots thay are made of custom sheet metal and if they change it so that there is an end teams will most likely have to redo their entire robot. This means a lot of money is wasted because of something like this. Even teams that just use a standard build system would have to scrap what they have made. There will be no end game and there doesn't have to be the GDC does what they want and what is best for teams.

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I suspect he means they're lenient about size, weight, and all the other inspection requirements during the practice rounds, since robots don't have to pass inspection to play in practice matches. They can be banned from practice matches if the LRI, FTA, etc deem them unsafe, though. Which a 63" tall robot would probably be.

More or less this. Both the inspectors and the field staff really want to see your robot compete on the field. Sometimes this means overlooking a minor rule violation (maybe one of the numbers on your bumpers fell off) on the condition that you fix it in the near future.

I've also seen plenty of instances in which a team adds something to their robot (such as a frisbee blocker in 2013) during qualifications, and the refs aren't entirely sure if it is within the height regulations or not. If it is not an egregious violation and either it is early enough in the competition or the field is running significantly behind, they might let it slide for a round.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Tanis

More or less this. Both the inspectors and the field staff really want to see your robot compete on the field. Sometimes this means overlooking a minor rule violation (maybe one of the numbers on your bumpers fell off) on the condition that you fix it in the near future.

I've also seen plenty of instances in which a team adds something to their robot (such as a frisbee blocker in 2013) during qualifications, and the refs aren't entirely sure if it is within the height regulations or not. If it is not an egregious violation and either it is early enough in the competition or the field is running significantly behind, they might let it slide for a round.

In this case, though - it's obvious that 'taller than 5 feet' isn't something to let slide. It's a significant part of even a preliminary inspection-- because otherwise they wouldn't fit on the field.

[FrankJ]

Remember all the hate & consternation with a simple clarification of the robot size cylinder during climbing the pyramid last season? Clarifying what it meant to be on the bridge for balancing in rebound rumble? I expect the rules at kickoff will be the rules unless there is a glaring issue that needs to be corrected.

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by Libby K

In this case, though - it's obvious that 'taller than 5 feet' isn't something to let slide. It's a significant part of even a preliminary inspection-- because otherwise they wouldn't fit on the field.

My point exactly. As I mentioned in my first post, it is something that shouldn't (and won't) happen this year. I have 100% confidence in the field staff that I have worked with.

[criogod]

With regards to ri3d type mid level robots at every competition. It team went the same route last year (as rookies) and at championships quickly realized our mistake. :-) I think the trick for this year to throw over the truss, that should completely cut off the basic robots due to the bonus points.

[Bongle]

With all the people calling the game boring, easy, generic, etc., I look forward to all their teams fielding expertly driven robots that can throw, catch, floor-load, hit the goal, and play goalie, as well as have modular possession units (roller claws?) that they can slap onto any of their box-on-wheels qualification teammates in order to ensure a strong alliance in each match.

This game has one of the greatest opportunities for specialization to aid one's alliance in years. In 2011, the top teams laid tubes and then minibotted. In 2012, the top teams shot basketballs then bridged. In 2013, the top teams shot frisbees and then did a 1-level climb (with some exceptions)

This year, you can make a huge contribution to an alliance simply by being a really good catcher or a really good launcher. And since you can be a huge contributor by specializing, I hope we'll see lots of variety in robot designs.

[Riverdance]

I would hate to think that FIRST would do something like add something that drastic at the last possible minute and send thousands of high school students scrambling to make allowances for such a thing. Unfortunately, the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am.

The thing that has me most suspicious is the use of the truss. Money does not grow on trees, and FIRST would not spend that kind of money on a giant, 1726-pound lighting truss from which multiple fully-grown people can hang with no problem, only to use it as a glorified volleyball net.

[TucoSalamanc]

This just got posted to /r/frc but was quickly deleted (by the mods I think). I think this endgame is becoming a Half Life 3 type of thing.


See the notes.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Riverdance

The thing that has me most suspicious is the use of the truss. Money does not grow on trees, and FIRST would not spend that kind of money on a giant, 1726-pound lighting truss from which multiple fully-grown people can hang with no problem, only to use it as a glorified volleyball net.

Considering what the fields cost (hundreds of thousands of dollars), this not a surprise to me at all.

The fact that it's COTS is also nice, as they don't need to get some things designed and welded.

$3k per field is not bad compared to the cost of the above engineering and fabrication time. It's also nothing compared to the cost of the field.