New robot rules at Peachtree

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by martin417

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

Martin,

I'd ask a very direct question on the Q&A as soon as possible. Individual events should not have additional robot requirements that either supplement or contradict the FRC Manual / Q&A. If this ruling was created in conjunction with the GDC, then it needs to be publicized to all teams through an official form of communication (i.e. A Team Update).

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Martin,

I'd ask a very direct question on the Q&A as soon as possible. Individual events should not have additional robot requirements that either supplement or contradict the FRC Manual / Q&A. If this ruling was created in conjunction with the GDC, then it needs to be publicized to all teams through an official form of communication (i.e. A Team Update).

^This^

The question needs to be asked (something like this ... add or update it to make it better): "Does an individual regional, or district event, have the authority to create and enforce additional rules and requirements without these rules and requirements coming from the official FIRST Q&A or Team updates?"

[AdamHeard]

I suppose this could be interpreted as the LRI clarifying ahead of time how they will interpret/enforce R8.

The reasoning of the LRI may be that all stored energy devices over some undefined quantity of energy (regardless of type) must have lockouts to be considered "safe" per R8.

[JB987]

Received from the LRI prior to San Diego regional...

In the spirit of R8, Inspectors will be requiring a couple of items if you plan to operate your robot in this manner:

1) Presence of an interlock independent of the firing system that prevents accidental release of the mechanism while in the pit, queuing line, field placement, field removal or any other non-match time the robot mechanism is "armed."

2) Demonstration to the inspector of proper and safe placement and removal of the interlock.

3) A description to the inspector of your plan for safe field removal if the robot is not upright and the mechanism is armed.

This interlock does not have to be part of your robot.

For many teams a strap sufficed.

[matthew_martin]

I think that if your team uses a pneumatic system as your firing method, you should be safe of this rule. I'm not entirely sure, but since there is a solenoid going to your cylinders, as long as your cylinders are not compressed (i.e. because of test firing your robot before your match), none, or at least VERY little energy is "stored." I think this rule was mainly aimed at protecting teams using a Tension-Based firing mechanism. I know when my team was prototyping a tension launcher, we called it "The Machine of Death" just because of how dangerous it was to be around it... In a tension based setup, when the firing arm is loaded, all of the energy is stored, but in Pneumatics, generally it isn't.

There's my 2¢. I'm not sure if this is true, but I hope it helps.

[Monochron]

In case no one else mentioned it, this was also a rule at the North Carolina Regional. As far as I know though, it was not enforced, just a suggestion. When my team's robot got inspected we did not show the judges our safety mechanism at all.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'd ask a very direct question on the Q&A as soon as possible. Individual events should not have additional robot requirements that either supplement or contradict the FRC Manual / Q&A. If this ruling was created in conjunction with the GDC, then it needs to be publicized to all teams through an official form of communication (i.e. A Team Update).

Note, this isn't a commentary on what has been proposed by the Peachtree Regional, rather just some suggested steps to ensure any sort of ruling of this type is enforced uniformly and consistently across FRC events.

[Richard Wallace]

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.
...

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

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'd ask a very direct question on the Q&A as soon as possible. Individual events should not have additional robot requirements that either supplement or contradict the FRC Manual / Q&A.

Martin and Karthik, I think the pertinent sections of the Manual are 5.5.2, 5.5.3, and 3.2.1, rule <G3>. I agree that procedures to ensure safety should be used uniformly at all events.

I expect FIRST staff and Big Al are already talking about this one.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Martin and Karthik, I think the pertinent sections of the Manual are 5.5.2, 5.5.3, and 3.2.1, rule <G3>. I agree that procedures to ensure safety should be used uniformly at all events.

Yup, understood; the LRI has final authority at events. I just would hope that if something is deemed a necessary safety addition for Georgia, it would be deemed so for all events. Along with this, I would hope the contrapositive also applies.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by JB987

Received from the LRI prior to San Diego regional...

Originally Posted by Karthik

Yup, understood; the LRI has final authority at events. I just would hope that if something is deemed a necessary safety addition for Georgia, it would be deemed so for all events.

Looks like this is not just for Georgia.

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Looks like this is not just for Georgia.

There was no such requirement at the Dallas Regional.



However we brought and used a 1 ton load chain to clip our shooter to the frame just in case, and also because it was a good iddea

[Max Boord]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Martin,
Individual events should not have additional robot requirements that either supplement or contradict the FRC Manual / Q&A. If this ruling was created in conjunction with the GDC, then it needs to be publicized to all teams through an official form of communication (i.e. A Team Update).

I agree. Orlando had a similar issue where our inspector "made up" the pneumatics rules as he went along. We pulled up the diagram in the manual and asked him where we wrong and where told "its not on there but its not ok". So we fixed that problem and where then ordered to move our main breaker because he felt like telling us to move it.(no rule was violated whatsoever).

None of these "unofficial" updates where conveyed to us before the event.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by Max Boord

I agree. Orlando had a similar issue where our inspector "made up" the pneumatics rules as he went along. We pulled up the diagram in the manual and asked him where we wrong and where told "its not on there but its not ok". So we fixed that problem and where then ordered to move our main breaker because he felt like telling us to move it.(no rule was violated whatsoever).

None of these "unofficial" updates where conveyed to us before the event.

Out of curiosity, was was the issue with the pneumatic? And was your main breaker easy to reach before you had to move it?

[Max Boord]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

Out of curiosity, was was the issue with the pneumatic? And was your main breaker easy to reach before you had to move it?

We had our pneumatics done as the diagram had showed. however, the inspector required us to add a manual valve and pressure gauge to our off board setup despite both already being installed on the robot.

Our main breaker was installed about an inch in from our chassis perimeter out of reach of any moving mechanism. We where told to move it within 2 inches of our shooter arms.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Max Boord

We had our pneumatics done as the diagram had showed. however, the inspector required us to add a manual valve and pressure gauge to our off board setup despite both already being installed on the robot.

R89 says the manual valve needs to be in both places for an offboard system. The stored pressure gauge can be in either place... but I think the inspector took a good idea and made it law.

FYI, if you disagree with an inspector, ask to see the LRI, and the copy of the Manual the LRI should have with him.