New robot rules at Peachtree

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by martin417

I just received an email blast from the Peachtree regional commmitee. They are now adding a requirement for a "safety interlock", a device that will prevent accidental actuation of a firing system.



The only issue I have here is that since this is not rule put in place by FRC, there is no Q&A, or any other method by which we can get clarification. I have no worries that the launching mechanism on our robot might accidentally fire. I am now worried that we will run into trouble with the inspectors because I do not see an easy way to add an interlock that will not violate the robot rules. Our mechanism is pneumatic in nature, and we must transport the robot with the pneumatic system pre-charged. since the pneumatic rules are very restrictive, most safety interlock systems would violate the pneumatic rules.

There is no governing body I know of to ask questions of, since this was not imposed by FIRST.

This year just keeps getting better.

We have a pneumatic firing system as well. We designed a mechanical lockout that does not violate any rules. It is simply a metal bar that goes through 2 eye bolts in the frame. The bar keep the arm from firing even if we hit the trigger while it is in place. We forgot a few times with the practice bot. It makes a dull thud when it's fired with the safety on.

I have had lockouts in all high energy devices after we were told by an inspector to add one in about 5 years ago.

[martin417]

Unfortunately, our design does not lend itself to a mechanical blocking device.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by martin417

Unfortunately, our design does not lend itself to a mechanical blocking device.

a wire with a hook at the end that is attached to the frame?

[Brandon Holley]

Ours is simply a loop of high- strength sailing line with a carabiner on it. Loops around the catapult, frame of the robot and back on itself. Giant orange streamer attached to remind us to take it off.

I'm not familiar with your design, but I can't imagine doing something similar is much more difficult for you guys.

-Brando

[Electronica1]

After looking at the picture of your robot on the blue alliance, I would suggest asking if you could put a removable guard in place of a lock. By guard I mean a tube that would go on the end of the vacuum so even if it was to fire, it would not hit anything. I know this is not the perfect solution but it could be an option (I think).

[Kevin Leonard]

In general, this is a good idea anyway. Both us and our alliance partners (1126) this past weekend had ridiculously powerful shooters. Both also had a mechanical lock in place for carrying the robot in a stored energy configuration. Whether it's just a steel bar through two eyebolts holding back your catapult (20) or a thick metal pin that holds back a powerful slingshot (1126), the stored energy should be somehow contained for a worst-case scenario.

That being said I know exactly what you mean. Can the regional require this since it is not in the official rules? I'm not sure that's okay.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Thunder910

That being said I know exactly what you mean. Can the regional require this since it is not in the official rules? I'm not sure that's okay.

In my opinion, safety trumps all, so yes they could, rules or not. Just my opinion.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by martin417

Unfortunately, our design does not lend itself to a mechanical blocking device.

Small-picture: Ratcheting tow strap looped around? 4901 uses one to fine-tune its release point, but a second one could easily cinch down and prevent firing.

Big-picture: I'm not thrilled with regionals adding "rules" that are not in the competition manual. Many are well-intentioned, but they are infuriating to me as a competitor. (Don't get me started on labeling the main breaker.) Have you tried emailing FRC Team Support?