Defence on the High Goal?

[JB987]

Originally Posted by m1506m

At 6.5" this would not be within the 6" cylinder.

The one in the middle is only 6"...

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by JB987

The one in the middle is only 6"...

I believe(if I'm not mistaken from my 5 years of youth lax) that's the opening, which means the plastic would make it longer than 6 in.

Overally, FIRST really stunted defensive efforts compared to last year. I'm okay with that. Because this year effective defense requires much more strategy/driving/less "sit in front of FCS, block) than last year.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

I believe(if I'm not mistaken from my 5 years of youth lax) that's the opening, which means the plastic would make it longer than 6 in.

Overally, FIRST really stunted defensive efforts compared to last year. I'm okay with that. Because this year effective defense requires much more strategy/driving/less "sit in front of FCS, block) than last year.

Right you are. Should have had my glasses on

[ehfeinberg]

449 had the idea of a high blocker which was a 6 inch wide wall which would spin around one edge really fast, effecively make a 12 inch cylinder of blocking area. This entire assembly would then be placed on another rotating platform extending the range of the blocker. While it would only be 6 inches wide, it would be able to cover a much larger area.

[Shu]

Originally Posted by ehfeinberg

449 had the idea of a high blocker which was a 6 inch wide wall which would spin around one edge really fast, effecively make a 12 inch cylinder of blocking area. This entire assembly would then be placed on another rotating platform extending the range of the blocker. While it would only be 6 inches wide, it would be able to cover a much larger area.

I don't believe that would legal if it could not be fully contained in a 6" cylinder while rotating. Also, if it would impart any force on the ball during contact, that would be another foul.

[waialua359]

Given the restrictive parameters for teams to create devices to block the high goal, I still find it will be very effective to prevent teams from scoring.
Add the fact that there are no Safe Zones, I think many teams are underestimating the defense.

[Tungrus]

If you are planning flimsy blocker be warned, the ball has is 2+ lbs going at some decent speed, it can cause serious damage.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Shu

I don't believe that would legal if it could not be fully contained in a 6" cylinder while rotating. Also, if it would impart any force on the ball during contact, that would be another foul.

It's legal. The rule makes no requirement that the virtual cylinder remain fixed relative to the robot. An infinitely thin post with an infinitely thin 6" long stick rotating about a pivot on it satisfies all of the rules. The virtual cylinder will simply oscillate back and forth, with the vertical pole moving from one edge to the other and back.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Add the fact that there are no Safe Zones,

Well, there sort of are four of them.

[aldaeron]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

A 2inx2inx0.125in square aluminum tubing would be wild overkill and won't bend or break. You could easily find a few dozen other OTS material solutions that would also suffice.

True, but since it does not bend, all of the ball's energy will transfer right into your frame. Will your bot tip over? With some reasonable assumptions I think you could do a nice Physics inelastic collision calculation here.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Well, there sort of are four of them.

To what are you referring?

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Well, there sort of are four of them.

Yes....and we are building with that in mind.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Madison

It's legal. The rule makes no requirement that the virtual cylinder remain fixed relative to the robot. An infinitely thin post with an infinitely thin 6" long stick rotating about a pivot on it satisfies all of the rules. The virtual cylinder will simply oscillate back and forth, with the vertical pole moving from one edge to the other and back.

Check out Q177 in the Q&A: https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...-of-g12-if-the

Generally, if the MECHANISM is in motion relative to the ROBOT at the time of impact, it is "launching" and thus POSSESSION. If the MECHANISM is not in motion relative to the ROBOT, it is considered "deflecting" and not POSSESSION.

So while a contraption that spins around to create an effective block area >6" might be legal, it would be subject to a technical foul every time it actually worked to block a shot!

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

True, but since it does not bend, all of the ball's energy will transfer right into your frame. Will your bot tip over? With some reasonable assumptions I think you could do a nice Physics inelastic collision calculation here.

Alternatively: you could rely on your mechanism or robot structure reacting off of the player station wall to prevent your robot from tipping over.

[markmcgary]

Originally Posted by Madison

It's legal. The rule makes no requirement that the virtual cylinder remain fixed relative to the robot. An infinitely thin post with an infinitely thin 6" long stick rotating about a pivot on it satisfies all of the rules. The virtual cylinder will simply oscillate back and forth, with the vertical pole moving from one edge to the other and back.

I'm not sure if this statement plays nicely with Q116?