New robot rules at Peachtree

[Steve W]

If FIRST was concerned about this why did they not make it a requirement at season start. I understand the reasoning behind it but would be more concerned this year about exploding tanks.

I have seen quite a few different shooters and to try and "restrain" them could be very difficult. This would but major stress on a team at the regional as they cannot do anything while the robot is bagged. I also believe that there were games in past years without this new rule that were more powerful than this year yet there was nothing said then.

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by Retired Starman

... In a case like this, we would like to see a physical lock (a bolt, zip tie, or carabiner) on that gate latch to keep it from snapping open during transport. The safety can be removed once the robot is safely on the field...

Don't you have equal concerns for a student handling a locking device that is looped through a gate latch on an energized firing mechanism? If transport is a concern, then a teenagers hands on the device that releases that energy should be a greater concern.

I would think that any locking device should be on the arms of a catapult or on the object that is physically doing the throwing, not on the release device. Not one of my rifles has me touching the trigger to release the safety.

This presents a greater challenge to teams to design something that will work without fail while their robot is bagged. Very few robots that I have seen that didn't plan this into their design from the start will be able to add something that is 100% effective at this point without getting the robot out and we can all admit that the pits aren't the greatest place to engineer a solution to a safety issue. With that said, I hope all teams find a solution to this.

[wilsonmw04]

What makes this different than an interpreter requiring you change something on the robot because he/she deems it unsafe? I have had to do this at least once. It was outside of the rules, but we did it anyway.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I just saw this post but I am guessing that the email is in response to Team Update 2014-2-18

"General Updates
As we approach competition season, we wanted to remind Teams to prioritize safety when transporting their ROBOT on and off the FIELD, to include transporting the ROBOT in its lowest potential energy state and/or including lockouts to help mitigate unexpected release of stored energy. Inspectors will ensure ROBOTS comply with R8 and do not create unsafe conditions. If inspectors feel your ROBOT is unsafe to be transported while storing energy, they will work with you to add lockouts to help mitigate the unexpected release of stored energy. If you are unsure as to whether or not you need lockouts, it’s best to be on the safe side and assume you do. Per T12, the Team should be able to safely release stored energy and be able to demonstrate this during Inspection. If the ROBOT creates an unsafe condition for people to be around it, on-FIELD troubleshooting prior to the MATCH will be limited to that which can be achieved safely."


I am sure that the LRI is taking a proactive stance since more than one person has been injured by the unintentional release of stored energy at an FRC event this season. Of course this statement is simply a further reminder of the importance of following R8 and as listed T12 in your design.

Al,

I do NOT disagree with what is being proposed. Safety First.

My issue is whether a regional or district event has the authority to add requirements without an express grant from FIRST through the Team update process or the Q&A process. I believe this sets a bad precident and erodes the authority of the GDC and FIRST.

[Retired Starman]

Originally Posted by Steve W

If FIRST was concerned about this why did they not make it a requirement at season start. I understand the reasoning behind it but would be more concerned this year about exploding tanks.

I have seen quite a few different shooters and to try and "restrain" them could be very difficult. This would but major stress on a team at the regional as they cannot do anything while the robot is bagged. I also believe that there were games in past years without this new rule that were more powerful than this year yet there was nothing said then.

Yes, in year's past there have been strong shooters. For instance, in 2010's Breakaway game, we saw strong hammer-like shooters. But that year, nothing could extend beyond the frame perimeter. This year, shooters can fire 20 in. outside the frame perimeter where body parts are carrying the robot. The example I cited of a gate latch holding back a fully charged actuator is taken from that year. While ideally the mechanism itself should be restrained, locking the gate latch with a pin may suffice to make it safe.

Naturally, each robot will need to be evaluated on its own merits toward creating a safe condition. Again, our goal is not to harass teams, but to try to reduce obvious risks. To do less would be unthinkable.

Dr. Bob
Chairman's Award is not about building the robot. Every team builds a robot.

[Retired Starman]

Originally Posted by MrBasse

Don't you have equal concerns for a student handling a locking device that is looped through a gate latch on an energized firing mechanism? If transport is a concern, then a teenagers hands on the device that releases that energy should be a greater concern.

I would think that any locking device should be on the arms of a catapult or on the object that is physically doing the throwing, not on the release device. Not one of my rifles has me touching the trigger to release the safety.

This presents a greater challenge to teams to design something that will work without fail while their robot is bagged. Very few robots that I have seen that didn't plan this into their design from the start will be able to add something that is 100% effective at this point without getting the robot out and we can all admit that the pits aren't the greatest place to engineer a solution to a safety issue. With that said, I hope all teams find a solution to this.

As said before, each robot must be evaluated individually to find a safe solution. The example is only that. I won't argue the point further.

[Amo10]

I don't think that peachtree is making up this rule they are just telling the teams that they are going to be very strict enforcing that the FTA, LRI or Head Referee may determine at any time that the ROBOT is unsafe so make sure to bring a safety device to the competition. So I don't think that they are making up rules. They are just reminding teams that they are required to have this. If this change didn't have to do with saftey I would not be for it and I don't think they would be allowed to do it.

[Jon Stratis]

We sent this out to all the teams participating in MN regionals after the week-0 events:

Over the weekend, we got to see a lot of robots at week-0 events, and many of you are utilizing large amounts of stored energy (in springs or surgical tubing) for your mechanisms to launch the ball. We fully expect you to be transporting your robot to and from the field and around the pits with these mechanisms "charged", or ready to fire. While this is legal, I want to remind you all of R08:Robot parts shall not [...] be unsafe, cause unsafe conditions[...].

In this spirit, we will be looking for the following with regards to these high-energy shooting mechanisms:
1. Presence of an interlock that will prevent the system from firing. Think of this as a "Remove before Flight" pin, clamp, or other device. It is not part of your robot, but it is in place when transporting your robot around the venue and carrying it on and off the field.
2. Demonstration of the interlock and its proper use.
3. A description of the safe handling of your robot, both in normal conditions and in the event it is not upright at the end of a match.

Very similar wording to what the OP received. We saw this not as adding a new robot rule, but giving teams a heads up as to how a specific rule was going to be enforced. This really is all about safety, and we do try to be reasonable about it - if it's not possible for the machine to fire while being transported, we didn't hassle any teams.

Everyone who says the planning committee doesn't have the authority to create a rule is correct. However, the LRI has the authority to enforce the rules already present, including R08. Isn't it better to know how that rule will be enforced ahead of time?

[FrankJ]

Last year (not so much at Peachtree) it was wheel guards on exposed shooter wheels. The capacity of a store energy shooter accidentally releasing is a far greater safety risk. At least that is my opinion.

One possibility would be a nylon cargo strap. You could add an eye bolt to the robot fairly quickly. This is a suggestion, I am not designing your robot.

[Steve W]

OK, since we are so concerned about safety why are we not making sure that all chains are covered and gears covered so that the "pinch points" (flavor of the day a few years ago) are protected. Any gears and sprockets should be covered and protected. Gear boxes should be covered so small fingers don't get caught. I have no issues with safety but I do with unwarranted overkill which some inspectors show. I am an inspector and LRI and if I feel something is unsafe I will make sure that the team fixes the issue but I will not go to an extreme and make all teams put something in place.

History - The team I was with a few years ago had many sprockets joined by lots of chain. They were small sprockets and short pieces of chain. Everything was set back 2-3 inches from the face of the robot yet we were told that we had to "protect the area" because of "pinch points". Everyone has a different view of what is safe. If FIRST dictated that all robots must have a safety device attached to their robot I would be OK with that but they haven't.

[jman4747]

Team Update 2014-2-18

"General Updates
As we approach competition season, we wanted to remind Teams to prioritize safety when transporting their ROBOT on and off the FIELD, to include transporting the ROBOT in its lowest potential energy state and/or including lockouts to help mitigate unexpected release of stored energy. Inspectors will ensure ROBOTS comply with R8 and do not create unsafe conditions. If inspectors feel your ROBOT is unsafe to be transported while storing energy, they will work with you to add lockouts to help mitigate the unexpected release of stored energy. If you are unsure as to whether or not you need lockouts, it’s best to be on the safe side and assume you do. Per T12, the Team should be able to safely release stored energy and be able to demonstrate this during Inspection. If the ROBOT creates an unsafe condition for people to be around it, on-FIELD troubleshooting prior to the MATCH will be limited to that which can be achieved safely."

FIRST does want this so the LRI is inside the rules. To me the only debatable thing is should FIRST have made this a part of the rules at release or at least earlier on in the season (like week 1 or 2). I'd guess a safety devise designed into a system from the beginning would be a bit better than one hastily attached at a regional.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steve W

OK, since we are so concerned about safety why are we not making sure that all chains are covered and gears covered so that the "pinch points" (flavor of the day a few years ago) are protected.

In the spirit of debate, I can give an answer.

Pinch points are usually small well-defined locations. They a problem for people who are putting body parts into those locations, and are generally safe if the robot is disabled*. If you aren't touching the robot, you're not in danger. However, stored-energy catapult mechanisms can be a problem for people who are merely nearby. They pose a danger over a relatively large space, and it's often possible for such a mechanism to be fired even when the robot is completely powered off.

* If a pinch point can cause injury without the robot being enabled, I'm all for guarding it well.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Perhaps a little history and experience here would help...
The nature of the game has led to some teams using unusual designs to launch the ball. While most teams design in some form of safety locks or other actuation devices, when needed, other teams do not. This year, far more teams are using pneumatics than in past years. Many of those teams have no experience with pneumatics and have no mentors who use them in daily work. The same is true for springs and other deformed robot parts and yes chains and sprockets. While many of you do not remember the safety warnings of past years, I can tell you they were there. Robot inspectors find unusual mechanisms every week so it is not possible to make a statement about one that covers all mechanisms. Most teams that have experience with the actuating parts they are using, know how to design in safety to prevent any harm to participants and to volunteers. If you are one of those teams that has been unable to design a mechanism that can be safely carried to the field and will not accidentally release when touched by a student or volunteer or by a robot inspector, then plan to be asked to add something to prevent this occurring. There are a number of ways to accomplish this and the Inspectors will assist you. I am sorry if this produces a little stress for you or your team. There have been minor injuries this season and at least one unexpected release where the lock prevented an injury.
Even the team may not be aware of the danger that lurks within. If you have never been in the queue waiting to take the field, then don't ask me to explain how dangerous it can be.

Please remember that boy and girl scouts, FLL and FTC students, parents and grand parents, little children and non-technical folks will be roaming the pits and assisting with the field in every venue including the Championship. They have to be protected as well.

[Thad House]

I'm perfectly fine with inspectors expecting this at events. Anything spring-loaded or pneumatically actuated can be much more dangerous then people expect.

Because of the frame perimeter rules, our robot has to start a match with the catapult cocked because otherwise it sticks out of the perimeter. What we do while it i like this is we run a tie-down across the catapult to a few eyehooks on each side. It was very easy to put in, and any team that moves with lots of stored energy should do this. Now if they would let us start outside the frame perimeter in the name of safety, we could solve a decent amount of these problems, but they will never do that.

[CalTran]

My team actually had a very clever implementation on how they keep the catapult safe. If you click the link, you see that they're running a surgical tubing powered catapult, which they'll load after they've placed the robot on the field. However, they still keep the winch for the catapult ready by running the line for the winch to a carabiner, which they'll unhook while in transit.